DUNN v. STATE (2019)

Jahmar Philip Dunn appeals the trial court's order revoking his probation following an open plea and imposing a sixty-month prison sentence. We affirm the revocation of probation and Dunn's sentence without further discussion. We do, however, agree with Dunn that the trial court erred in failing to enter a written order, consistent with its oral pronouncement at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, that Dunn, a violent felony offender of special concern, would pose a danger to the community. See § 948.06(8)(e)1., Fla. Stat. (2018) (“If the court, after conducting the hearing required by paragraph (d), determines that a violent felony offender of special concern has committed a violation of probation or community control other than a failure to pay costs, fines, or restitution, [it] shall [m]ake written findings as to whether or not the violent felony offender of special concern poses a danger to the community ․”).

Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to enter an appropriate order consistent with its earlier oral pronouncement. See Arnone v. State, 204 So. 3d 556, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (“[W]here a court orally pronounces a reason, consistent with one or more of the factors listed under section 948.06(8)(e)1[.] for its finding that the defendant, as a violent felony offender of special concern, poses a danger to the community, but fails to provide written reasons for its finding, the proper remedy is to affirm the revocation of the defendant's probation, but remand for entry of a written order conforming to the court's oral pronouncement.” (citing Bell v. State, 150 So. 3d 1214, 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014); Martin v. State, 87 So. 3d 813, 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012))).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.

PER CURIAM.

LAMBERT, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.