scintilla of evidence in the record to support Bailey’s claim that it was in the best interests of the child to change his surname. Bailey was given ample opportunity to present evidence before the trial judge on this issue. Indeed, following presentation of the last witness, the trial judge inquired of the parties as to whether they had any further testimony to present in the case. None was presented. The record does not reflect, nor does Bailey argue on appeal, that if given another opportunity, additional evidence could be presented in support of this issue. Therefore, a new evidentiary hearing is not warranted. IV. Written Order. A written order or final judgment must conform to the oral pronouncement of the trial court. See Goosby v. Lawrence, 711 So.2d 577, 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)(<HOLDING>). The trial court in the instant case ordered
holding that a trial courts changing of the written sentence to conform with the oral pronouncement of sentence is ministerial holding that in cases of direct conflict between a courts oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment the oral pronouncement controls holding that written judgment controlled over oral pronouncement holding that the failure of a written sentence to conform to the courts oral pronouncement cannot be raised in a rule 3800a motion holding that the trial courts oral pronouncement must conform to the written judgment