PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges his sentence, arguing that the trial court’s. written order, finding six violations of probation, does not match the court’s oral pronouncement, which found only that Appellant “violated [probation] by .committing the criminal offense of robbery with a firearm.” “Where a trial court’s written sentencing order conflicts with the oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls.” Santiago v. State, 133 So.3d 1159, 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). The State concedes that the written order does not match the oral pronouncement. As the ■written order finds violations of probation not included in the oral pronouncement, the written order must be corrected.
We affirm the imposition of costs, as these had been imposed in the original sentencing proceeding. The court did not have to orally impose them again at the sentencing for the violation of probation.
Affirmed and remanded for correction in conformance with the oral pronouncement.
WARNER, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
. As Appellant’s other arguments lack merit, we decline to address them.