of cases is distinguishable, however. To begin with, Shull no longer applies to habitual felony offender sentencing. The legislature has amended section 775.084 to specify that a habitual felony offender sentence is not subject to the sentencing guidelines. It also amended section 775.084 to delete the requirement that the trial court determine “if it is necessary for the protection of the public to sentence the defendant to an extended term.” See Ch. 88-131, § 6, at 708-09, Laws of Fla.; § 775.084(4)(h), Fla. Stat. (2001) (“A sentence imposed under this section is not subject to s. 921.002.”). Habitual offender sentencing is now separate from both the sentencing guidelines and sentencing under the Criminal Punishment Code. See Bateman v. State, 566 So.2d 358, 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (<HOLDING>); Owens v. State, 560 So.2d 1260, 1261 (Fla.
recognizing that whitehead was decided before section 775084 was amended so that once the defendant meets the definition of a habitual felony offender the trial court is no longer required to provide written reasons for imposing a sentence in excess of the guidelines holding that under the 1991 version of the habitual offender statute defendant could not receive habitual offender sentence for life felony holding habitual offender sentence rendered any errors in guidelines score sheet harmless recognizing that the amendment to section 775084 superseded whitehead and a habitual offender sentence in excess of the guidelines even in the absence of stated reasons for departure is now valid holding that where original sentencing judge imposed a guidelines sentence defendant could not be sentenced as a habitual offender upon violation of probation