What did the court decide?

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of Pantzer's postconviction motion, concluding the asserted new-law decision does not apply retroactively to his case.

Who does this affect?

This decision affects Justin Pantzer and similarly situated Florida defendants seeking collateral relief based on the Erlinger decision.

The opinion is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved; if rehearing is denied, Pantzer may consider further appellate options if available.

Can this be appealed further?

Potential further review could include a timely motion for rehearing in the district court and, if denied, a petition for discretionary review to the Florida Supreme Court, subject to jurisdictional rules.

Justin Pantzer v. State of Florida

Docket 4D2025-3356

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

Criminal AppealAffirmed

Filed: Apr 29, 2026 · 2 days ago
Jurisdiction: Florida
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Type: Opinion
Case type: Criminal Appeal
Disposition: Affirmed
Docket: 4D2025-3356

Appeal from an order denying a Florida Rule 3.800 postconviction motion in a criminal case.

Summary

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of Justin Pantzer's Florida Rule 3.800 postconviction motion. The panel relied on recent Florida precedent holding that a 2024 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Erlinger) — even if a change in the law — does not apply retroactively, so Pantzer's claim based on that decision fails. The court cited Wainwright v. State and related Florida authority in reaching its decision and noted that the opinion is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

Issues Decided

Whether the trial court erred in denying a Rule 3.800 motion premised on applying Erlinger v. United States retroactively.
Whether a change in law (Erlinger) should be applied retroactively to collateral challenges to convictions in Florida.

Court's Reasoning

The court relied on Florida precedent (Wainwright v. State) that concluded that even if the U.S. Supreme Court's Erlinger decision represents a change in the law, that change does not apply retroactively to collateral postconviction claims. Applying that rule to Pantzer's motion, the appellate panel found no error in the trial court's denial because the claimed new-law benefit cannot be retroactively applied to his case. The court therefore affirmed the denial.

Authorities Cited

Wainwright v. State411 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 2025)
Erlinger v. United States602 U.S. 821 (2024)
Maye v. State368 So. 3d 531 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), rev. granted No. SC2023-1184, 2024 WL 1796831 (Fla. Apr. 25, 2024)

Parties

Appellant: Justin Pantzer
Appellee: State of Florida
Judge: William L. Roby

Key Dates

District Court decision date: 2026-04-29
Circuit Court case number (filing reference)

What You Should Do Next

1
Consider filing motion for rehearing
If Pantzer wishes to challenge the decision further, he should timely file a motion for rehearing in the Fourth District to preserve issues and seek reconsideration.
2
Consult appellate counsel
Obtain experienced appellate counsel to evaluate the merits of a rehearing motion and the viability of seeking discretionary review by the Florida Supreme Court.
3
Monitor deadlines
Ensure any rehearing or further review petitions are filed within the strict timelines set by Florida appellate rules to avoid losing appellate rights.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of Pantzer's postconviction motion, concluding the asserted new-law decision does not apply retroactively to his case.
Who does this affect?: This decision affects Justin Pantzer and similarly situated Florida defendants seeking collateral relief based on the Erlinger decision.
What happens next?: The opinion is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved; if rehearing is denied, Pantzer may consider further appellate options if available.
Can this be appealed further?: Potential further review could include a timely motion for rehearing in the district court and, if denied, a petition for discretionary review to the Florida Supreme Court, subject to jurisdictional rules.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                                FOURTH DISTRICT

                            JUSTIN PANTZER,
                               Appellant,

                                       v.

                          STATE OF FLORIDA,
                               Appellee.

                             No. 4D2025-3356

                                [April 29, 2026]

   Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for
the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; William L. Roby, Judge;
L.T. Case No. 432007CF001105CFAXMX.

   Justin Pantzer, Lake City, pro se.

   No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

   Affirmed. See Wainwright v. State, 411 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 2025), cert.
denied, ___ U.S. ___, 145 S.Ct. 2789 (2025) (holding that even if Erlinger v.
United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), constitutes a change of law, it does not
apply retroactively); see also Maye v. State, 368 So. 3d 531, 532 (Fla. 6th
DCA 2023), rev. granted, No. SC2023-1184, 2024 WL 1796831 (Fla. Apr.
25, 2024).

KUNTZ, C.J., FORST and SHEPHERD, JJ., concur.

                            *          *           *

    Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.