Williams v. State, Case No. 5D17–2543
| Decision Date | 20 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 5D17–2543 |
| Citation | 235 So.3d 962 |
| Parties | Jason L. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jason L. Williams, Okeechobee, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
Jason L. Williams appeals the denial of his motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Williams was convicted of robbery while masked and two counts of grand theft. He was sentenced to life in prison with a thirty-year minimum mandatory for the robbery, and ten years in prison for the grand thefts. Additionally, he was designated as both a habitual felony offender (HFO) and a prison releasee reoffender (PRR). This Court affirmed Williams's judgment and sentence on appeal. Williams v. State, 134 So.3d 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).
Williams filed his first motion to correct sentence, challenging his HFO and PRR designations. The trial court dismissed the motion not on the merits, but as facially insufficient. Williams appealed, and this Court affirmed. Williams v. State, No. 5D17–162, 2017 WL 1829579 (Fla. 5th DCA May 2, 2017). Williams then filed the instant motion to correct sentence, raising the same challenge to his HFO and PRR designations but now including record attachments. The trial court denied relief, ruling that the instant motion was improperly successive. This appeal follows.
The error to be corrected in a rule 3.800(a) motion must be apparent from the face of the record. Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045, 1049 (Fla. 2011). Accordingly, such a motion cannot require an evidentiary hearing. Id. As no evidentiary hearing is required or permitted, this Court is presented with pure issues of law on appeal, and applies the de novo standard of review. Smith v. State, 143 So.3d 1023, 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
While rule 3.800(a) permits a defendant to file successive motions, a defendant is precluded from re-litigating the same issue previously decided on the merits in a successive rule 3.800(a) motion. See State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287, 290–91 (Fla. 2003) (); Ellis v. State, 853 So.2d 484, 485 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) ().
In his successive motion, Williams alleges his PRR designation is illegal because the trial court used the wrong dates in determining whether he committed the requisite offenses within the three-year statutory time frame....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jimenez v. State
...adequate time to research and consult with an expert about this method."10 The standard of review is de novo. See Williams v. State , 235 So.3d 962, 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ("The error to be corrected in a rule 3.800(a) motion must be apparent from the face of the record. Johnson v. State ,......
-
Burks v. State, 3D19-1618
...record," the court "is presented with pure issues of law on appeal, and applies the de novo standard of review." Williams v. State, 235 So. 3d 962, 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).LEGAL ANALYSIS"No person shall ... be subject for the same [offense] to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Amen......
-
Thomas v. State
...the manner previously described. Our review of the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence is de novo. Williams v. State , 235 So. 3d 962, 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).Thomas argues that the postconviction court erred in failing to apply this court's earlier decisions in Preyer v. Stat......
-
Zeno v. State
... ... review orders denying rule 3.800(a) motions de novo ... Williams v. State, 235 So.3d 962, 963 (Fla. 5th DCA ... 2017) ("As no evidentiary hearing is required ... 314 So.3d at 1252; Brooks, 969 So.2d at 243 ... In this ... case, one of Zeno's sentences exceeded both the lowest ... permissible sentence and the statutory ... ...