Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to apply a drug trafficking multiplier not employed at the prior sentencing to impose a sentence of seventy-two months. Trotter, 825 So.2d at 367-68. Similarly, in Roberts v. State, 547 So.2d 129, 130 (Fla.1989), the original trial judge imposed the maximum guidelines sentence of concurrent terms of twenty-seven years using an improperly calculated scoresheet. At resentencing, the new trial court imposed the same sentence by departing upward from the guidelines maximum of twenty-two years under the new score-sheet. We approved, holding “that it is proper for the judge to reconsider whether a departure from the guidelines is appropriate when the corrected guidelines score-sheet is before him on remand.” Roberts, 547 So.2d at 131; see Roberts v. State, 644 So.2d 81, 81-82 (Fla.1994) (<HOLDING>). We have already referred to the attendant 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that at resentencing on violation of probation trial court may revise guidelines scoresheet to reflect prior convictions mistakenly omitted from the original through no fault of the defendant (B) holding that state may not revoke probation for nonpayment of fine where probationer is unable to pay through no fault of his own (C) holding that even though the defendant did not challenge his prior convictions at the original sentencing lawofthecase principles do not insulate the state from proving them at resentencing (D) holding habitual sentence rendered guidelines scoresheet irrelevant (E) holding that where original sentencing judge imposed a guidelines sentence defendant could not be sentenced as a habitual offender upon violation of probation
Output (English): holding that even though the defendant did not challenge his prior convictions at the original sentencing lawofthecase principles do not insulate the state from proving them at resentencing