D.J.S., Appellant, v. STATE (2022)

D.J.S. appeals an amended disposition order finding that he had committed eight delinquent acts of theft. He challenges the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress as well as the denial of his motion for judgment of dismissal at his bench trial. We find no error in those rulings.

However, the amended disposition order conflicts with the trial court's clear and unambiguous oral pronouncement. In particular, although the court expressly found that D.J.S. did not commit the delinquent act alleged in count six, grand theft motor vehicle, the amended disposition order states that the court found that he had done so.

We accordingly remand with instructions to correct the disposition order to comport with the oral pronouncement. See, e.g., Swaford v. State, 320 So. 3d 331, 331-32 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (affirming revocation of probation but sua sponte remanding for correction of scrivener's errors in revocation order, which indicated appellant had been found in violation "even though the transcript from the hearing reflects that the trial court declined to find him in violation of that condition"); D.F., Jr. v. State, 650 So. 2d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (affirming adjudication of delinquency but remanding to correct scrivener's error indicating that juvenile had been found guilty of wrong offense); see also N.L. v. State, 4 So. 3d 1286, 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (accepting state's concession that written disposition order failing to comport with trial court's orally pronounced disposition must be corrected); S.D.F. v. State, 911 So. 2d 887, 887-888 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (same); L.G. v. State, 702 So. 2d 1337, 1338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) ("[T]he written order must conform to a clear and unambiguous oral pronouncement or sentence by the trial court.").

Affirmed and remanded for correction of scrivener's error.

KHOUZAM, Judge.

VILLANTI and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.