as it is governed by the guidelines. Upward departure sentences are distinguishable from an HFO or HVFO sentences because the latter are specifically exempted from the guidelines. Cf. § 775.084(4)(g), Fla. Stat. (1997) (a habitual offender sentence is not subject to the guidelines provisions of section 921.001). Thus, we hold that the trial court could properly impose an upward departure sentence in this case. AFFIRMED. BARFIELD, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ„ concur. 1 . Section 784.08 no longer requires that the appellant be sentenced pursuant to the guide lines or the Criminal Punishment Code. See 1999 Fla. Laws, ch. 99-188, § 5, 1051. However, the appellant committed his crime in July of 1998. Thus, the 1997 version of the statute applies. Green v. State, 907 So.2d 489, 502 (Fla.2005) (<HOLDING>). 2 . The statute does not require a sentence
holding that statutory good time credits must be calculated under the law in effect at the time of resentencing after an appeal of the sentence is determined holding that a defendants sentence is controlled by the law in effect at the time he committed the offense holding that tort law and the law of punitive damages are not controlled by the contract choice of law provision holding that where the law is unsettled at the time of trial but settled by the time of appeal the plainness of the error should be judged by the law at the time of appeal holding that for purposes of revoking supervised release the applicable guidelines are those in effect at the time of the supervised release violations rather than those in effect at the time of initial offense