In this Anders * appeal, we affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence, but remand for the trial court -to correct two scrivener’s errors in the order revoking his probation. Although Appellant was on probation for one count of grand theft, the revocation order states that he was on probation for two counts of .grand theft. Additionally,, while, the State alleged, and the trial court orally pronounced its finding, that Appellant violated . Conditions 5 and 6 of his probation by committing one new law offense and associating with. a person engaged in criminal activity, respectively, the revocation order states that he violated his probation “[b]y violating Condition 5 by committing new law offenses.” We, therefore, remand for the trial court to correct the revocation order. See Williams v. State, 138 So.3d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (affirming a judgment and sentence in an Anders appeal, but remanding for the trial court to correct the revocation order to conform to its oral pronouncement as to which alleged violations supported revocation); see also Nickolas v. State, 66 So.3d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Washington v. State, 37 So.3d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Appellant need not be present. See Williams, 138 So.3d at 1103.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.