Full Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 29, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D19-2309 Lower Tribunal No. 19-895B ________________ C.D., a Juvenile, Appellant, vs. The State of Florida, Appellee. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Yery Marrero, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Luis Enrique Rubio, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before EMAS, C.J., and SALTER, and MILLER, JJ. MILLER, J. UPON PARTIAL CONFESSION OF ERROR We affirm the finding of delinquency under review, save the written disposition of the case. See Art. X, § 9, Fla. Const. (“Repeal of a criminal statute shall not affect prosecution for any crime committed before such repeal.”); see also Hicks v. State, 277 So. 3d 153, 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (“If a new rule of law is substantive, it is not retroactive, and a party is not entitled to the benefit of the new rule unless it preceded the crime or cause of action.”) (citation omitted); R.A.M. of S. Fla. v. WCI Cmtys., Inc., 869 So. 2d 1210, 1216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“[T]he task of interpreting the statute is guided by the rule of statutory construction which establishes a presumption against the retroactive application of substantive law—as distinct from procedural or remedial law-in the absence of a clear expression of legislative intent that the statute be given retroactive effect.”) (citations omitted); J.S. v. State, 691 So. 2d 20, 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (“We find unmeritorious defendant's claim of error in his adjudication of delinquency. It is not necessary for the state to prove the identification of marijuana by chemical or scientific means.”) (citations omitted); A.A. v. State, 461 So. 2d 165, 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (“It is generally held that an officer with adequate experience in the narcotics field, and marijuana in particular, can identify a substance as marijuana by its appearance and odor.”) (citations omitted). Pursuant to the State’s commendable partial confession of error and our independent review of the record, because the written adjudicatory 2 order does not conform with the court’s oral pronouncement at the time of the adjudicatory hearing, we reverse and remand with directions for the trial court to enter a written order which so conforms. See Catalan v. State, 911 So. 2d 203, 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“Where there is a difference between the court's oral pronouncement and a written order, the oral pronouncement controls.”) (citation omitted). Affirmed in part; reversed in part. 3