PER CURIAM.
Appellant’s allegations in his motion to correct an illegal sentence were insufficient to establish that his sentence is illegal. Assuming the-sentencing court erred in considering an outdated PSI as alleged by appellant, this was an error in sentencing procedure that should have been raised on direct appeal. See Shaw v. State, 780 So.2d 188, 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (affirming the denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion asserting “the trial -court-did not have a proper presentence investigation report” because such a claim could be reviewed only on direct appeal). It did not render the sentence itself illegal.
Affirmed.
CIKLIN/C.J., WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ„ concur.