to elude conviction. In 2011, in an appeal from the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a), this court held that Mr. Wilson could not be sentenced as a PRR for the burglary of a conveyance, and we reversed the postconviction court’s order. Wilson v. State, 76 So.3d 332, 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). On remand, the trial court entered an order granting Mr. Wilson’s motion to correct an illegal sentence and removed the PRR designation. In his subsequent motion for postconviction relief, Mr. Wilson argued, in part, that the trial court erred in amending his sentence without ordering a new sentencing hearing and permitting Mr. Wilson and his counsel to be present at that hearing. Mr. Wilson is correct. See Gorham v. State, 988 So.2d 152, 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we reverse ground one of the
holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review holding that when a prr sentence is determined to be illegal the defendant is entitled to a de novo resentencing holding that the constitutional level of punitive damages is not a finding of fact that must be determined by the jury it may be determined de novo by the court holding that resentencing is required holding that appellant was entitled to a de novo review however he was not entitled to a de novo review of an argument never raised