The point of contention is whether the trial court must hold a new hearing.In Arnone v. State , 204 So.3d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), this court held:[W]here a court orally pronounces a reason, consistent with one or more of the factors listed under section 948.06(8)(e)1, for its finding that the defendant, as a violent felony offender of special concern, poses a danger to the community, but fails to provide written reasons for its finding, the proper remedy is to affirm the revocation of the defendant's probation, but remand for entry of a written order conforming to the court's oral pronouncement.

However, in those cases where the trial court orally pronounces a reason under this section for its finding that an individual poses a danger to the community, but fails to provide a written order, then "the proper remedy is to affirm the revocation of the defendant's probation, but remand for entry of a written order conforming to the court's oral pronouncement." Arnone v. State, 204 So. 3d 556, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Here, the court made an oral pronouncement finding appellant to be a danger to the community due to "clocking somebody in the mouth" while on probation, which was consistent with one or more factors listed under section 948.06(8)(e)(1).

The State agrees that remand for a written order is necessary because the trial court did not timely enter the required written order. See Arnone v. State, 204 So.3d 556, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). In Arnone, we held:

If the record provides the information allowing the trial court to enter such written findings, it shall not be necessary for the trial court to conduct a further hearing. Arnone v. State, 204 So.3d 556, 557-58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). The trial court also shall correct the judgment to reflect that Lillard was found guilty of the violation of probation.

Assuming the record provides the information necessary to make the statutorily required written danger findings, the trial court need not conduct a further hearing. See Arnone v. State, 204 So.3d 556, 557-58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

The State agrees that the trial court never entered the requisite written order and that a remand for a written order is required. See Arnone v. State, 204 So. 3d 556, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). [9, 10] However, Defendant is not entitled to resentencing.

Assuming the record provides the information necessary to make the statutorily required written danger findings, the trial court need not conduct a further hearing. See Arnone v. State, 204 So.3d 556, 557-58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

Section 948.06(8)(e)1, Florida Statutes (2015), requires a trial court to make a written finding that violent felony offender of special concern poses a danger to the community. Because the trial court articulated a valid ground for designating Gettis as a violent felony offender of special concern, we affirm but remand for entry of a written order that conforms to its oral pronouncements. SeeGlenn v. State , 219 So. 3d 1010 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) ; Arnone v. State , 204 So. 3d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ; Bell v. State , 150 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) ; Martin v. State , 87 So. 3d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). AFFIRMED and REMANDED .

Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to enter an appropriate order consistent with its earlier oral pronouncement. SeeArnone v. State , 204 So. 3d 556, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ("[W]here a court orally pronounces a reason, consistent with one or more of the factors listed under section 948.06(8)(e)1[.] for its finding that the defendant, as a violent felony offender of special concern, poses a danger to the community, but fails to provide written reasons for its finding, the proper remedy is to affirm the revocation of the defendant's probation, but remand for entry of a written order conforming to the court's oral pronouncement." (citing Bell v. State , 150 So. 3d 1214, 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) ; Martin v. State , 87 So. 3d 813, 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) )).

Although no objection to the scoresheet was made during the sentencing hearing, the issue was preserved by Appellant's Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion. SeeArnone v. State , 204 So.3d 556, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (finding the defendant preserved his arguments on appeal as to the VFOSC finding by filing a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion).As discussed more fully below, the State concedes that the scoresheet used by the trial court assessed too many total points and that Appellant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing with a corrected scoresheet.