Background
Steven Ray Gunter was charged in late 2024 with possessing a driver license on which the required “Sexual Predator” designation had been altered. In January 2025, a divided panel of the Fifth District held in Crist v. State (Crist I) that the designation constituted impermissibly compelled speech.
Gunter moved to dismiss his prosecution based on Crist I. Although the State argued that the mandate had not issued and that the Fifth District was rehearing Crist I en banc, the trial court treated the panel decision as controlling and dismissed the case. During the State’s appeal, the en banc court issued Crist v. State (Crist II), rejecting the First Amendment challenge and holding that the driver-license designation does not compel speech. The Florida Supreme Court declined jurisdiction, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District held that Gunter’s case was a “pipeline case” because it remained pending in the appellate process when the controlling en banc decision in Crist II was issued. The court therefore applied Crist II rather than the superseded panel decision on which the trial court had relied.
Because Crist II rejected the compelled-speech theory underlying the dismissal, the Fifth District reversed the order granting Gunter’s motion to dismiss. It remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A case still moving through the appellate process is subject to controlling precedent issued before that process becomes final.
- The trial court’s reliance on the divided panel decision in Crist I could not support dismissal after the en banc court rejected that decision’s compelled-speech analysis in Crist II.
- The reversal reinstates further trial-court proceedings; it does not adjudicate Gunter’s guilt.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the practical effect of en banc rehearing on related cases that remain in the appellate pipeline. A trial-court ruling based on a panel opinion may be reversed when the en banc court replaces that precedent before the case becomes final.
For prosecutions involving Florida’s required “Sexual Predator” driver-license designation, the Fifth District treated Crist II as controlling after further review of that decision ended.