orders address the same motion. Therefore, we have consolidated the two cases. We reverse the orders insofar as they deny Fisher’s request for relief related to his sentence for conspiracy to traffic in methaqualone. The enhancement of that offense from a first-degree felony to a life felony violated the prohibition against double jeopardy. Under the circumstances of this case, Fisher must be resen-tenced on the conspiracy conviction without the enhancement. See Hopping v. State, 708 So.2d 263 (Fla.1998). In addition, the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction over the first third of the sentence on the conspiracy conviction was impermissible, and it must be stricken, because Fisher elected to be sentenced under the guidelines. See Kennedy v. State, 490 So.2d 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (<HOLDING>). Fisher’s other arguments are without merit
holding defendant sentenced to term equal to maximum guidelines sentence under improperly calculated sentencing guidelines scoresheet was not entitled to be resentenced because defendant was habitualized such that sentencing guidelines score sheet was irrelevant and the sentence imposed was not illegal holding that the trial court may not retain jurisdiction over a sentence when the defendant is sentenced under the guidelines holding that sentencing under the mandatory guidelines regime creates a presumption of prejudice that the government must rebut with clear and specific evidence that the district court would not have  sentenced the defendant to a lower sentence if it had treated the guidelines as advisory holding that offenses sentenced on the same day by the same judge are not related under the guidelines holding that when the trial court sentenced the defendant to prison under the belief that the lowest permissible sentence was a prison term but the lowest permissible sentence under a corrected scoresheet would be a nonprison sanction the court could not say that the same sentence would have been imposed had the trial court had the correct information