State of Florida v. Steven Ray Gunter

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 5D2025-1484
LT Case No. 2024-CF-004645-A
_____________________________
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellant,
v.
STEVEN RAY GUNTER,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County.
Barbara Kissner, Judge.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard A.
Pallas, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for
Appellant.
Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Ali L. Hansen, Assistant
Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
October 16, 2026
PER CURIAM.
In late 2024, Steven Ray Gunter was charged with possessing
a driver license upon which the required “Sexual Predator”
designation had been altered. In January 2025, this Court issued
a divided panel opinion in Crist v. State, 430 So. 3d 211 (Fla. 5th

2
DCA 2025) (Crist I), holding that the Sexual Predator designation
“is impermissibly compelled speech under the prevailing judicial
test.” Id. at 222.
On March 27, 2025, Gunter moved to dismiss his case in the
trial court, citing to Crist I. The State contended, among other
arguments, that the mandate had not yet issued and this Court
was rehearing Crist I en banc. After a hearing, the trial court
granted the motion to dismiss on May 13, 2025, finding the Crist I
decision controlling. The State then appealed to this Court a week
later.
While the State’s appeal was pending in this Court, the en
banc decision was issued. See Crist v. State, 419 So. 3d 183 (Fla.
5th DCA 2025) (Crist II). In Crist II, this Court rejected Crist’s
First Amendment challenge and held that the designation on the
driver license does not compel speech. Id. at 197−98.
Crist then sought review in the Florida Supreme Court. In his
appellate brief, Gunter acknowledged that his case is a “pipeline
case” and that this Court should await the determination of
whether the supreme court accepts jurisdiction before reversing
the trial court’s dismissal order. Thereafter, the Florida Supreme
Court declined jurisdiction thereby ending the matter in the
Florida judicial system. Crist’s petition for certiorari to the United
States Supreme Court was denied on October 5, 2026, thereby
ending the matter conclusively. See Crist v. Florida, No. 25-7426,
2026 WL 2976473 (Oct. 5, 2026).
Because this case is a “pipeline case,” the trial court’s order
granting the motion to dismiss, which relied on Crist I, is reversed
in light of Crist II, and the matter is remanded to the trial court
for further proceedings. See Reed v. State, 565 So. 2d 708, 709 (Fla.
5th DCA 1990) (“A ‘pipeline case’ is one in which a conviction is not
final by trial or appeal at the time a controlling decision is issued
by the supreme court. The appellate process is not completed until
the mandate is issued.”(citation omitted)).
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

3
MAKAR, HARRIS, and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________