WILSON v. STATE (2025)

Appellant appeals the denial of his motion to suppress, after which he entered a plea to trafficking in phenethylamines. We affirm without comment. We write only to address appellant's claim that the written sentencing order, which imposed $200 in costs of prosecution, conflicts with the trial court's oral pronouncement, which imposed $100 in costs of prosecution. The state concedes error. “Where a trial court's written sentencing order conflicts with the oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls.” Santiago v. State, 133 So. 3d 1159, 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Accordingly, we affirm appellant's judgment and sentence but remand for correction of the scrivener's error to reflect the amount of prosecution costs orally pronounced. See Abraham v. State, 360 So. 3d 1147, 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (“[W]hen the trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence and the written sentencing documents conflict, ‘[t]he error in the written documents constitutes a scrivener's error that must be corrected so that the written documents comport with the sentence orally imposed.’ ”) (quoting Bryant v. State, 301 So. 3d 352, 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)).

Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

Per Curiam.

May, Levine and Artau, JJ., concur.