Case Name: Maurice Derrias BURNEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2013-06-05
Citations: 114 So. 3d 455
Docket Number: No. 4D12-118
Parties: Maurice Derrias BURNEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: MAY, C.J., GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 114
Pages: 455–455

Head Matter:
Maurice Derrias BURNEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 4D12-118.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
June 5, 2013.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Karen E. Ehrlich, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals from the circuit court's revocation of his probation. He argues that the court's written order of revocation of probation is not consistent with the court's oral pronouncement. See Ortiz v. State, 2 So.3d 318, 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) ("A written order of revocation must conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement.") (citation omitted).
However, as the state points out, the defendant did not preserve this argument with either a contemporaneous objection or a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 motion. See Evans v. State, 895 So.2d 1292, 1292-93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (defendant did not preserve his argument regarding the discrepancy between the trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence, written sentence, and order on probation with either a contemporaneous objection or a rule 3.800 motion).
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the circuit court's revocation of probation, but without prejudice to the defendant's ability to file a rule 3.800 motion in the circuit court raising this argument.
Affirmed without prejudice.
MAY, C.J., GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.