B.L.S., Appellant, v. STATE (2019)

The State charged B.L.S. with the delinquent acts of criminal mischief and burglary. At the adjudicatory hearing, the trial court orally pronounced that B.L.S. committed criminal mischief and trespass, a lesser included delinquent act of burglary. The subsequent written disposition order does not conform with the trial court's oral pronouncement. Specifically, the written disposition order provides that B.L.S. committed criminal mischief and burglary, not criminal mischief and trespass, as the trial court orally pronounced. We thus reverse and remand to the trial court for entry of a written disposition order that conforms with its oral pronouncement that B.L.S. committed the delinquent acts of criminal mischief and trespass. See L.D. v. State, 107 So. 3d 514, 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“Because a trial court's written disposition must be consistent with its oral pronouncement, we reverse the disposition order and remand for entry of a corrected order that accurately reflects the court's oral pronouncement.” (citing N.L. v. State, 4 So. 3d 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009))). We affirm the disposition order in all other respects.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

BADALAMENTI, Judge.

MORRIS and BLACK, JJ., Concur.