hearing, the State relied on documents entered into evidence at the previous sentencing hearing to prove the appellant qualified as a habitual felony offender. Over defense counsel’s objection, the trial court reviewed the transcript of the previous sentencing hearing and relied on the previously introduced evidence to declare the appellant a habitual felony offender. The appellant was again convicted of felony battery and sentenced as a habitual felony offender. On appeal, the appellant argues that it was error for the State to rely on the evidence introduced at the sentencing hearing to prove that he qualified as a habitual felony offender on resentencing. The State concedes error and asks this Court to remand for resentencing. See Rich v. State, 814 So.2d 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we reverse the appellant’s
holding that on resentencing following reversal the state was required to introduce evidence to prove the defendant qualified for an enhanced sentence and could not only rely upon evidence introduced at a prior sentencing hearing holding that because resentencing following reversal is a new proceeding the state must introduce evidence that the defendant qualifies for enhanced sentencing even though such evidence was introduced in the previous sentencing hearing holding that at a resentencing the state must again prove the basis for an enhanced sentence even though such evidence was produced at the original sentencing holding that resentencing is required holding that at resentencing the state must present evidence on an enhanced sentencing factor despite having done so at the prior sentencing hearing