¶1Affirmed. Sentencing by a successor judge was not objected-to and thus not preserved for review. See Madrigal v. State, 683 So.2d 1093, 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Davis v. State, 677 So.2d 1366, 1368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Further, defense counsel waived the preparation of a pre-sentence investigation report (“PSI”). See Ortiz v. State, 9 So.3d 774, 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Appellant contends that , we should treat these issues as ineffective assistance of counsel on the face of the record. We decline to do so, as there could have been strategic reasons for not requesting a PSI and for opting to be sentenced before the successor judge.
¶2. As to the other matters raised regarding counsel’s mistakes as to the applicability of youthful offender sentencing on the original charges and the appropriate statutory máxi-mums, although counsel was wrong, these errors were corrected by the court.