
    STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Anthony AMICO, Appellee.
    No. 87-2708.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    June 1, 1988.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Diane E. Leeds, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   HERSEY, Chief Judge.

Anthony Amico was charged with armed robbery. He entered a plea of nolo conten-dere and was sentenced to two and one-half years’ imprisonment to be followed by two and one-half years’ probation. Appellee was released on probation after fourteen months in jail. He subsequently violated the terms of his probation and the trial court held a hearing at which appellee admitted the violation. He was sentenced to sixteen months in prison with credit for time served, which represented the remainder of the two and one-half year sentence originally imposed.

At the hearing on appellee’s probation violation the trial court failed to complete or to have available a new scoresheet. This was error. Rule 3.701 d.14., Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides: “Sentences imposed after revocation of probation or community control must be in accordance with the guidelines.” Rule 3.701 d.l. provides: “One guideline score-sheet shall be utilized for each defendant covering all offenses pending before the court for sentencing.”

A trial court must have a guidelines scoresheet available at sentencing. Kolbe v. State, 480 So.2d 694 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). See also Nelson v. State, 498 So.2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Finklea v. State, 471 So.2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

The failure of the trial judge to have a new completed scoresheet before him at appellee’s probation revocation hearing was reversible error.

REVERSED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.

DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.  