Case Name: John NEWCOMB, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-02-12
Citations: 687 So. 2d 365
Docket Number: No. 96-0605
Parties: John NEWCOMB, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 687
Pages: 365–366

Head Matter:
John NEWCOMB, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 96-0605.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Feb. 12, 1997.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Patricia Ann Ash, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for ap-pellee.

Opinion:
SHAHOOD, Judge.
Appellant, John Patrick Newcomb, appeals the order revoking his community control. We affirm the trial court's finding that appellant wilfully, materially, and substantially violated the terms of his community control.
We agree with appellant, however, that the written order of violation of community control must be corrected to reflect the trial court's oral findings. See Archie v. State, 558 So.2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Earle v. State, 519 So.2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Sampson v. State, 375 So.2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The state properly concedes this issue.
In this case, in spite of the trial court's oral pronouncement that it was not satisfied that appellant had the ability to pay the financial obligation imposed by the order of community control, the written order indicates a violation of condition 16, the condition requiring appellant to pay certain costs and fees. This undisputed technical error requires remand in order to correct the written order. Wood v. State, 653 So.2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Moss v. State, 617 So.2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
Accordingly, we remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR RE-SENTENCING.
DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.