Case Name: Gary P. LEDSOME, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2019-06-12
Citations: 272 So. 3d 884
Docket Number: No. 1D18-3859
Parties: Gary P. LEDSOME, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 272
Pages: 884–884

Head Matter:
Gary P. LEDSOME, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D18-3859
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
June 12, 2019
Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Tabitha Herrera, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
Bilbrey, J.
Gary P. Ledsome appeals the revocation of his probation on multiple grounds. As one of the bases of revocation is not supported by competent and substantial evidence, we reverse and remand.
Ledsome was alleged to have violated several conditions of probation, including the failure to report to his probation officer on May 1, 2018, as required. At the revocation hearing, the probation officer testified Ledsome was given until the 31st of that month to report, but other evidence adduced at the hearing on the affidavit of probation established Ledsome was arrested on the 31st. Thus, the violation for failure to report on May 1st is not established in the record by competent, substantial evidence. While other violations were established, the trial court did not indicate whether it would revoke probation and impose the same sentence absent a violation for failure to report to the probation officer, and therefore, we must remand this cause to the trial court. See Washington v. State , 215 So. 3d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).
Further, the written order of revocation does not conform to the trial court's oral pronouncements, the latter of which controls. See Justice v. State , 674 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1996). While the written order finds violations of conditions 2, 10, and 15, the trial court did not orally find such violations. The written order does not refer to a violation of condition 1 (failure to report) nor multiple violations of condition 5 (new law violations), despite the trial court's oral pronouncement at the hearing below that Ledsome had substantially and willfully violated these conditions. A corrected written order is therefore required.
Accordingly, the cause is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
Ray and Jay, JJ., concur.