
    Joshua GRAHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 96-03479.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Sept. 11, 1998.
    
      Barbara J. Pittman, Tampa, for Appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ronald Napolitano, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from the revocation of his community control, Joshua Graham argues that the trial court erred in imposing a habitual offender sentence in counts one and two of case number 94-14828. Graham does not challenge the nonhabitual sentence of twenty-two months’ imprisonment imposed in count three of case number 94-14828, nor the concurrent nonhabitual sentence of five years’ imprisonment imposed on each count of case number 93-5548 and, therefore, we affirm as to those sentences. As to the challenged sentences, the State concedes error.

Because the trial court imposed a nonhabi-tual sentence originally, the court was required to impose a guideline sentence upon the violation of community control. See King v. State, 681 So.2d 1136 (Fla.1996); Albritton v. State, 709 So.2d 101 (Fla.1998). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that Graham be resentenced under the guidelines on counts one and two of case number 94-14828.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.  