
    Robert BLAKE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D14-5260.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    April 15, 2016.
    Náncy A. Daniels, Public Defender; Colleen Dierdre Mullen, Steven L. Seliger, and Jennifer S. Morrissey, Assistant Public Defenders, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General; Trisha Meggs Pate and Jillian Hope Red-ing, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

The State filed an Affidavit of Violation of Probation alleging appellant violated Condition 5 of an Order of Probation by committing two new law offenses. The affidavit also alleged that appellant violated Condition 10 of the Order of Probation by failing to pay for costs of supervision and court costs. Appellant was subsequently convicted of one of the new law violations and acquitted of the other. In Blake v. State, Case No. 1D14-3888, 2016 WL 1359350 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), we per curiam affirmed appellant’s conviction for the new law violation; therefore, we affirm the revocation of probation on Condition 5, However, we write to address appellant’s second issue on appeal in which he argues that the written Order of Revocation of Probation does not conform to the oral pronouncement.

During the Violation of Probation hearing, the trial court orally pronounced that appellant was in violation of Condition 5, but not in violation of Condition 10. The written Order of Revocation of Probation stated that appellant violated Conditions 5 and 10 of the Order of Probation.

“Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written sentence, we should remand for the trial court to conform the written sentence to the oral pronouncement.” Frost v. State, 769 So.2d 443, 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Accordingly, this case is remanded with instructions for the written Order of Revocation of Probation to be conformed to the oral pronouncement.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED for correction.

ROBERTS, C.J., MAKAR and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.  