Moving the Finish Line: An Important Case in Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals

Imagine running a race, crossing the finish line at the 20-mile marker, and then being told that while you were running, someone moved the finish line to 25 miles. That is exactly what this case is about.

Florida law (Section 943.0435(11) Fla. Stat.) allows some registrants to petition a court to be removed from the registry after a set number of years have passed since they finished their sentence or supervision. When it was first created, that waiting period was 20 years. In 2007, the Legislature changed it to 25 years.

The question is whether that change applies to people who had already completed their sentences before the law changed in 2007. For many registrants, it means the difference between being free of the registry today and having to wait at least five more years, with in-person reporting several times a year, residency restrictions, travel reporting, and the constant risk of a felony charge for a simple paperwork mistake.

Attorney Ron Kleiner has filed nearly 100 petitions on behalf of registrants seeking removal under the original 20-year rule and has been successful in most (he will only take cases that qualify). In nearly every case where a judge granted removal, the State appealed. And in the overwhelming majority of those appeals, the State lost.

The issue has reached the Florida Supreme Court twice already. Both times the Court declined to take up the State’s appeal, the removals stood, and those petitioners no longer had to register.

The Third District Court of Appeal (Miami-Dade) has also affirmed removals under the 20-year rule at least three times before. On September 30, 2026, a panel of that same Third DCA reversed course. It ruled that the 2007 change can be applied to someone whose supervision ended in 2002, putting him back on the registry until at least 2027. So two people in identical situations in the same district can now get opposite outcomes depending on which three appellate judges hear their case.

On October 6, Mr. Kleiner filed a motion on behalf of his client asking the court to reconsider. In plain terms, he argues; (1) the State had no right to appeal. These petitions are filed in the criminal case, in criminal court. Under Florida law, the State can only appeal certain kinds of orders in criminal cases, and this is not one of them. (2) Another appeals court (the Second DCA) has already ruled contrary to this court. (3) “Not punishment” is not the same as “procedural.” The panel reasoned that because registration is labeled “not punishment,” the waiting period is just a procedural detail. But how long you must wait for relief is the substance of the right itself, not a procedural detail. (3) The Legislature never intended the change to be retroactive. Florida courts first ask whether lawmakers clearly intended a law to reach backward. The 2007 law simply took effect on July 1, 2007, and says nothing about applying to people already released. (4) It imposes new obligations for past events. Five more years of felony-enforced reporting is a new burden attached to a sentence that was already completed. And (5) The court never addressed the constitutional arguments, including ex post facto and due process. A 2026 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Ellingburg, makes clear that what a law actually does matters more than the label the Legislature puts on it.

He also asks the full Third DCA to rehear the case to resolve the conflict with its own prior decisions and/or to send the questions to the Florida Supreme Court.

This is about more than one person or one five-year gap. If the State can move the finish line once, what stops it from doing so again? Next year it could be 35 years, then 45, until the “possibility of removal” becomes meaningless. People need to be able to rely on the law that applied when they completed their sentences.

The court has ordered the State to respond, and its response is due November 17. We will be watching this case carefully and will keep you updated.