Read the opinion (PDF): Download the opinion (PDF)
Florida’s required “Sexual Predator” designation on a driver license does not compel speech, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held in an en banc decision, Crist v. State, 419 So. 3d 183 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025). On October 16, 2026, in State v. Gunter, No. 5D2025-1484, the court relied on that decision to reverse a trial judge who had dismissed a charge against a defendant accused of possessing a license on which the designation had been altered. According to the opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of the Crist case on October 5, 2026.
The case. In late 2024, Steven Ray Gunter was charged in Marion County with possessing a driver license on which the required “Sexual Predator” designation had been altered. In January 2025 a divided Fifth District panel decided Crist v. State, 430 So. 3d 211 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025), which the opinion calls Crist I. It held that the designation “is impermissibly compelled speech under the prevailing judicial test.”
On March 27, 2025, Gunter moved to dismiss his case, citing Crist I. The State responded, among other arguments, that the mandate in Crist I had not issued and that the court was rehearing it en banc. After a hearing, the trial judge granted the motion on May 13, 2025, treating Crist I as controlling. The State appealed a week later.
What changed. While that appeal was pending, the en banc court decided Crist II, 419 So. 3d 183. The opinion says the court there rejected Crist’s First Amendment challenge and held that the designation on the license does not compel speech. Crist asked the Florida Supreme Court to review it, and, in the opinion’s words, the supreme court “declined jurisdiction.” Crist’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied on October 5, 2026 (Crist v. Florida, No. 25-7426).
The ruling. Gunter’s own brief acknowledged that his was a “pipeline case” and said the court should wait to see whether the supreme court took jurisdiction. The court agreed it was a pipeline case, which the opinion defines by quoting Reed v. State, 565 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990): “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.” The court therefore reversed the dismissal, which had relied on Crist I, in light of Crist II, and sent the case back for further proceedings.
What it does not say. The opinion is a short per curiam order. It reverses a dismissal and does not decide whether Gunter altered anything or what will happen to him. It also does not discuss how other districts have treated the designation. This article describes Crist I and Crist II only as this opinion describes them.
Panel: Judges Makar, Harris and MacIver concur in the per curiam opinion. The opinion is not final until any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 is decided.
Source: State v. Gunter, No. 5D2025-1484 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 16, 2026). This article is general information, not legal advice.