ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

Upon the State’s motion for clarification, we withdraw our previously-issued opinion and substitute the following opinion in its stead.

Appellant, Ariel Bueno, appeals from an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). After Bueno *588 filed his initial brief, we directed the State to file an answer brief addressing whether the judgment and sentence accurately reflects the oral pronouncement made by the trial court at the time of sentencing. In its answer brief, the State acknowledges that the judgment and sentence do not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement 1 , but correctly points out that Bueno did not raise this issue in the trial court, and we therefore do not consider it on appeal. Stangarone v. State, 94 So.3d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

As to the issues which Bueno did raise in his motion below and on appeal, we find they are without merit and affirm the trial court’s order denying same. Our affirmance is without prejudice to the filing, by either party, of a motion to correct illegal sentence to the extent the written judgment and sentence conflicts with the oral pronouncement. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) (providing that “[a] court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it ... when it is affirmatively alleged that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to that relief....”); Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 600 (Fla. 2007) (holding that where it is apparent from the face of the record that a written sentence conflicts with the oral pronouncement, relief is properly sought by a motion to correct illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a)). Affirmed without prejudice.