¶1 In its response to this Court’s order issued pursuant to Toler v. State, 493 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), the state has conceded that the appellant’s convictions for armed kidnapping, a life felony, and armed sexual battery, also a life felony, should not have been enhanced by the habitual felony offender statute. See Lamont v. State, 610 So.2d 435 (Fla.1992); Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173 (Fla.2001) (“We hold that a habitual offender sentence, which is solely a creature of statute, is illegal where the habitual offender statute in effect at the time of the offense prohibited the imposition of a habitual offender sentence”) and noting that “improper habitualization may have collateral consequences that could ultimately increase the length of [a defendant’s] sentence” (citing Ashley v. State, 614 So.2d 486, 489 (Fla.1993)).
¶2 We therefore reverse and remand the order on appeal for the trial court to strike *123 the habitual felony offender enhancement of the appellant’s convictions for armed kidnapping and armed sexual battery. The habitual felony offender enhancement of the appellant’s conviction for armed robbery, a first-degree felony punishable by life, need not be stricken. See Burdick v. State, 594 So.2d 267 (Fla.1992).
¶3 REVERSED AND REMANDED with directions.