Case Name: Jeffery TOMLINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2004-07-14
Citations: 876 So. 2d 742
Docket Number: No. 4D03-1804
Parties: Jeffery TOMLINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: STONE, POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 876
Pages: 742–742

Head Matter:
Jeffery TOMLINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 4D03-1804.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
July 14, 2004.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Donna M. Hoffmann, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Jeffrey Tomlinson, timely appeals his revocation of probation. We find Tomlinson's argument on the merits to be unpersuasive and decline to address it further. However, we acknowledge that the trial court's written order does not conform with its oral pronouncement. The trial court found Tomlinson guilty of violations 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15 and 16. Notwithstanding, the written order finds Tomlin-son guilty of violations 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. "[W]here a written order and an oral pronouncement are in conflict, the oral pronouncement prevails." Lacey v. State, 831 So.2d 1267, 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The State does not contest which violations the trial court convicted Tomlinson on or that the written order does not conform to the oral pronouncement. Accordingly, we remand for clarification of the inconsistent written order.
REMANDED.
STONE, POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.