IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JASON L. WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D17-2543

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed October 20, 1017

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Citrus County,

Richard A. Howard, Judge.

Jason L. Williams, Okeechobee, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

ORFINGER, J.

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, 
2

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 

(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) (noting that, by “barring the filing of successive repetitive 3.800 motions, [Florida 

appellate] courts essentially have applied collateral estoppel principles”); Ellis v. State, 

853 So. 2d 484, 485 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (explaining defendant’s successive rule 3.800(a) 

motion violated law of case doctrine).
3

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. Williams’s prior motion was

dismissed as facially insufficient because he failed to allege which court records would 

show that his PRR designation was improper. The instant motion corrects that deficiency 

and is facially sufficient. Because the first motion was not denied on the merits, the instant 

motion is not improperly successive and should be considered by the trial court as to the 

PRR designation. However, we affirm as to the HFO designation without further 

discussion. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to address the PRR

claim on the merits. 

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.