The defendant argues that the circuit court erred by revoking his youthful offender designation while sentencing him for violating probation. The defendant is correct that "once a trial court imposes a youthful offender sentence, it must continue that status upon resentencing after a violation of probation or community control." Smith v. State , 143 So.3d 1023, 1024-25 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The reason for this requirement is because "[a] youthful offender designation carries certain benefits within the criminal justice system that are not available to non-youthful offender prisoners." Id. at 1025 ; § 958.11, Fla. Stat. (2010).
Nevertheless, the defendant presently is not entitled to relief because he did not preserve this error for review by either objecting at sentencing or timely filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). See Davis v. State , 223 So.3d 1106, 1109 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ("The trial court erred in not maintaining [the defendant's] youthful offender status when it sentenced him after violating community control. Nevertheless, [the defendant] is presently not entitled to relief because he did not preserve this error for review by either objecting at sentencing or by timely filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b).").
Accordingly, we affirm the defendant's sentence, but without prejudice to the defendan *1132t seeking postconviction relief related to his youthful offender designation.
Affirmed without prejudice.
Gross and Conner, JJ., concur.