We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion alleging that he was improperly sentenced in absentia while incarcerated on unrelated charges, without prejudice to his filing a timely rule 8.850 motion in proper form, in light of Zuluaga v. State, 793 So.2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (claims of improper sentencing in absentia are properly raised in a rule 3.850 motion). We do not have a sufficient record to determine whether, if appellant does file a rule 3.850 motion, it would be successive under rule 3.850(f), and this opinion should not be construed as deciding that issue.