*16The Defendant appeals his conviction for second-degree murder, aggravated battery, and robbery, and sentence of forty-five years' imprisonment. He raises several issues on appeal and we affirm each without comment except for one.
We agree with the Defendant that the court erred when it considered a fact at sentencing that specifically conflicted with a factual finding by the jury. See, e.g. , Baehren v. State , 234 So.3d 799 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 10, 2018) ; Guerra v. State , 212 So.3d 541, 542 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). While orally pronouncing the sentence, the court stated that the Defendant "pulled out a firearm"; that he was "brandishing a firearm"; and, again, that he "pulled out firearms." Yet as counsel for the Defendant noted at the hearing and again argues on appeal, the verdict form specifically asked if "the Defendant actually possess[ed] a firearm," and the jury answered "no."
Further, the convictions on other charges do not explain the court's statements. Contra Howard v. State , 820 So.2d 337, 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Here, the jury specifically found the Defendant did not possess a firearm making it impossible to reconcile the court's statements at sentencing with the jury's verdict.
Because of the court's consideration of a fact at sentencing that specifically conflicts with the jury's verdict, we vacate the Defendant's sentence and remand the case for resentencing before a different circuit judge. The Defendant's conviction is otherwise affirmed.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for resentencing.
Gerber, C.J., and Gross, J., concur.