With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding habitual sentence rendered guidelines scoresheet irrelevant
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 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
D: 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
C.