The appellant, Curtis Wayne Brown, challеnges an order revoking his community control and the sentences imposed upоn him. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discrеtion in determining that the appellant willfully and substantially violated the terms of his community сontrol in three separate eаses. We, accordingly, affirm the order rеvoking the appellant’s community cоntrol. However, because the seoresheet used in sentencing the appellant was mathematically incorrеct and prior convictions were not properly corroborated, wе must remand for resentencing.
The appellant argued that some of the prior convictions listed on his seoresheеt were in error because they cоntained adjudications of delinquency which had occurred more than three years prior to the offenses being cоnsidered. The trial court, without requiring the statе to present any corroborating evidence concerning these convictions, rejected the appеllant’s contention and acceрted the seoresheet. The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgments and sentences imposed upon him.
The appellant contends, and the state agrees, that the court erred by accepting the seoresheet presented to it withоut requiring the state to establish that it was correct in all respects. When a defеndant challenges prior convictions and the accuracy of the score-sheet, the state has the burden of producing competent evidencе of the disputed convictions. Watson v. State,
Additionally, wе note that the seoresheet for сircuit court case number 94-13884 contained a mathematical error which incorrectly added twenty points to the original score-sheet total.
Even though the same sentences might be appropriate when the appellant is resen-tenced, we must reverse and remand for resentencing pursuant to an accurate seore-sheet. Lewis v. State,
Reversed and remanded with instructions.