on remand following a reversal for failure to present copies of the prior felony judgments and sentences); Roberts, 776 So.2d at 1034 (permitting re-sentencing as a habitual felony offender on remand upon proper proof); Brown, 701 So.2d at 410 (permitting resentencing as a habitual felony offender on remand upon presentation of proper proof that the defendant was the person named in the certified copies of judgments and convictions); see also Walker v. State, 988 So.2d 6, 8, 2007 WL 4462982 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec.21, 2007) (Altenbernd, J., concurring specially) (“Were we writing on a clean slate, I would follow the First, Fourth, and Fifth Districts in concluding that this evidentiary error does not preclude the State from seeking a habitual felo 24 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) (<HOLDING>). What we do address is the narrow question
recognizing a claim that the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum holding that apprendi does not apply where the defendant was sentenced to less than the statutory maximum holding statutory maximum for prior conviction is the potential maximum sentence defined by the applicable state criminal statute not the maximum sentence which could have been imposed against the particular defendant  according to the states sentencing guidelines holding that for purposes of apprendi the statutory maximum is the maximum sentence that may be imposed based solely on the jurys findings holding that the statutory maximum for apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant and without any additional findings by the court