In Cook v. State, 190 So.3d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), we affirmed appellant’s convictions but reversed for resentencing because appellant’s aggregate sentence of 93 years “did not give him a ‘meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation,’ and *269 was thus unconstitutional.” Id. at 216 (quoting Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 75, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010)).

At the resentencing hearing on remand, the trial judge heard testimony and resen-tenced appellant to an aggregate sentence' of 70 years. The trial judge recognized that appellant would be entitled to a meaningful review of his sentence under section 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2016).

Neither the judgment nor the sentence documentation indicate that appellant is entitled to sentence review. Written findings are required by statute. See § 775.082(3)(b)2.c., Fla. Stat. (2016) (providing that “[t]he court shall make a written finding as to whether a person is eligible for a sentence review hearing under s. 921.1402(b) or (c).”) (emphasis added).

We reject appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on this direct appeal from the resentencing. The ineffectiveness complained of is not apparent on the face of the record. See Dennis v. State, 696 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). We affirm the sentence but remand for the trial court to enter the written finding referenced above.