proper notice to all parties and hold an initial hearing no later than ten days from the filing to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is needed; the rule then provides that if an evidentiary hearing is needed, it shall be set no more than ten days from the date of the initial hearing. In this case, N.C. has not demonstrated that the procedures set forth in rule 8.135 were inadequate or deprived her of a fair and meaningful opportunity to be heard. Therefore, we conclude that rule 8.135 provides sufficient due process protections. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we hold that due process does not require that a trial court issue an oral pronouncement of disposition and that N.C.’s due process rights were adequately protected by the requirement in the juvenile rule DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>); C.A. v. State, 685 So.2d 1036, 1037 (Fla. 3d
holding written judgment must conform to oral pronouncement holding that disposition order be remanded to the trial court for revision to conform to the trial courts oral pronouncement holding that the trial courts oral pronouncement must conform to the written judgment holding that courts written sentence must conform to oral pronouncement holding that a trial courts changing of the written sentence to conform with the oral pronouncement of sentence is ministerial