erroneously sentenced Movant as a persistent offender and that the motion court likewise erred in denying Movant’s Rule 24.035 motion. The proper relief to grant Movant is well established. “The cases are uniform in holding that provisions for repeat offender sentencing do not create an additional substantive offense or crime and that error associated with the charge, proof or court findings in this respect does not require an unconditional remand for a new trial on the issue of guilt or innocence.” State v. Street, 735 S.W.2d 371, 373-74 (Mo.App.1987). “The appropriate remedy is a limited remand for the purposes of permitting the state to amend the information and submit proof supporting repeat offender sentencing.” Id. at 374. See Dudley v. State, 903 S.W.2d 263, 266-67 (Mo.App.1995) (<HOLDING>). Because Movant was improperly sentenced as a
holding that resentencing is required holding that in addition to a remand for clarification another option in these circumstances is to remand for resentencing holding that on direct appeal appellate court may remand for resentencing of all counts recognizing that defendants absence from resentencing proceeding was harmless as defendant was serving longer sentences on counts not subject to resentencing and thus suffered no practical consequence as result of being resentenced in his absence holding in a rule 24035 proceeding that remand for resentencing proper in absence of evidence and finding that movant was a persistent offender