Giuseppe Verdone, Jr. appeals his convictions for robbery with a weapon, kidnapping with a weapon, burglary with an assault or battery, and battery. As the State properly concedes, double jeopardy principles preclude Verdone’s conviction for simple battery. See, e.g., Young v. State, 43 So.3d 876, 877 (Fla. 6th DCA 2010) (“Convictions for both burglary with a battery and for the lesser included offense of battery violate double jeopardy.” (citations omitted)). As in Young, the verdict form in this case gave no indication as to whether the jury found Verdone to have committed a “burglary with an assault” or a “burglary with a battery,” requiring that we “read the verdict in a manner that would give the benefit of the doubt to [the defendant].” Id. For this reason, we reverse the simple battery conviction and time-served sentence. Verdone also argues that the trial court erred by allowing collateral crime evidence to be used under the inextricably intertwined doctrine. Finding no error in the admission of the collateral crime evidence, we affirm all other convictions and sentences.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.