Keith McCray appeals his convictions and sentences for armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, and attempted felony murder. We affirm McCray's convictions but remand with instructions to correct sentencing errors.
Paula Trupp found a sectional couch on Craigslist for $1300. She coordinated with the couch's purported owner-Kayla Brown-to go have a look. Trupp and her daughter went to Kayla's, where they discovered the couch was in worse shape than advertised. Trupp left, telling Kayla she'd have to think about it.
Trupp and her daughter then went to Burger King to mull things over. While they were there, Kayla repeatedly called Trupp, each time lowering the asking price. Kayla and Trupp finally settled on $800.
Later that afternoon, Trupp's daughter went with her friend Tipton to Kayla's apartment. But they did not leave with the couch as planned. Instead, they were robbed. Two men ran toward them, yelling "get the f*** down." One man pushed Trupp's daughter against a wall and demanded money. He also hit Tipton in the head with a baseball bat, and the other man put a gun to Tipton's head and pulled the trigger. The gun malfunctioned and did not fire. After a second attempt to shoot Tipton, and after the gun again malfunctioned, the two men fled.
Kayla was implicated in the robbery and agreed to a plea deal. She testified that McCray coordinated with her to rob Trupp's daughter and Tipton when they returned for the couch. Kayla and Tipton both testified that McCray was the man who tried to shoot Tipton.
*661McCray was convicted of all charges, and the jury found he actually possessed a firearm. The court sentenced him to thirty-five years' imprisonment followed by fifteen years' probation, and it imposed various costs and fines. McCray now appeals, raising three arguments. We address each in turn.
McCray first argues that his conviction for attempted felony murder cannot stand because his use of the gun extended throughout the underlying felony (the robbery) and therefore no intentional act separated the robbery from the attempted felony murder. See § 782.051(1), Fla. Stat. (2016) (establishing that attempted felony murder requires an act that could have caused death and that is not an "essential element" of the underlying felony). In other words, McCray argues, his act of putting a gun to Tipton's head and pulling the trigger was an "essential element" of the robbery. We reject this argument.
McCray relies primarily on Milton v. State , 161 So.3d 1245 (Fla. 2014). In Milton , the defendant shot into a crowd and faced several counts of attempted felony murder, each of which was predicated on the underlying felony of attempted second-degree murder. The State contended the act of shooting was not an "essential element" of the attempted-murder charge and could therefore support the attempted felony murder charge. The Florida Supreme Court held, though, that the "single act of discharging a firearm" was an essential element of the underlying attempted-murder charge, meaning it "did not satisfy the intentional act element of attempted felony murder." Id. at 1250 (marks omitted). In other words, but for Milton's shooting, there would have been no attempted murder, so his shooting was an essential element. And that meant the State could not satisfy its burden to show-as an element of attempted felony murder-"an intentional act that is not an essential element of the felony." § 782.051(1).
But our case is unlike Milton . Here, even had McCray not pulled the trigger, he was guilty of robbery. No shooting (or attempted shooting) is necessary for the crime of robbery. All the State must show is a taking through "use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear." § 812.13(1), Fla. Stat. We cannot conclude, then, that McCray's attempt to shoot his victim in the head was an "essential element" of the predicate offense of robbery. See Newbhard v. State , 237 So.3d 1075, 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ("The fact that [defendant] later shot [the victim], and by the use of such force was able to successfully complete the robbery, did not serve to convert that subsequent act of shooting into an essential element of the underlying attempted robbery."); Dallas v. State , 898 So.2d 163, 165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ("[W]e conclude that the evidence of shooting the victim was not an element of the attempted robbery....") (distinguishing Milton ); see also Williams v. State , 182 So.3d 11, 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) ("[T]he later act of shooting the victim in the abdomen is an intentional act separate and distinct from that of pointing the firearm at the victim's head and demanding that she hand over her bag. This allegation satisfies the 'not an essential element of the felony' requirement of the attempted felony murder statute quoted above." (citation omitted) ).
McCray's second argument is related to his pre-trial competency proceedings. After McCray's arrest, his counsel moved for a competency evaluation. A mental health expert subsequently evaluated McCray and produced a report finding him competent to proceed. During a preliminary hearing, McCray's counsel presented the report to the court and asked for a ruling. ("I think the State is prepared to *662stipulate to that report, so we need a finding of competency as we move forward.") The court, having received the report and having heard the parties' stipulations, announced that it found McCray competent "based on the report and the State's stipulation."
McCray argues this was fundamental error because the trial court never actually considered the report. The State confessed error on this point, but we find no error. See Perry v. State , 808 So.2d 268, 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (appellate courts are under no obligation to accept confessions of error).
As McCray correctly notes, a court cannot find competency based on the parties' stipulation alone. See Sheheane v. State , 228 So.3d 1178, 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) ("The court must make an independent finding of competence or incompetence-stipulations of competence are not permitted." (citing Zern v. State , 191 So.3d 962, 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) ) ). But here the court said it was relying on the expert report, not just a stipulation.
Judge Wolf speculates that the court may not have truly read the report. But we have no basis to suppose that the court did anything but what it said it did: base its finding on the report. See Merriell v. State , 169 So.3d 1287, 1288 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (rejecting argument that court did not make independent competency determination when court "had the competency evaluation ... stated that it had reviewed the evaluation, and specifically stated that it was finding Appellant competent to proceed."). We cannot determine from the transcript precisely how long the court had the report, but we will not assume the court took too little time to digest the relatively short and straightforward report.*
Although the court did not err in finding competency, it did neglect to put its oral ruling in writing. We therefore remand for entry of a written order. See Nehring v. State , 225 So.3d 916, 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (holding that when trial court makes oral competency finding but neglects to enter written order, appellate court is to remand for entry of written order consistent with oral ruling).
Finally, McCray argues that his sentence included court costs for domestic violence, the rape crisis fund, and the crime stopper trust fund, none of which was permissible. The State properly confesses error on these points, and we reverse these costs. Additionally, the court should correct McCray's written order of probation to match the court's orally pronounced sentence, which did not include probation or restitution for count two. McCray's sentence is otherwise affirmed.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions.
Osterhaus, J., concurs; Wolf, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.