¶1As to appellant’s attack upon the constitutionality of F.S. 39.02(5) (c), we affirm on authority of Johnson v. State, Sup.Ct. Fla.1974, 314 So.2d 573 and Davis v. State, Sup.Ct.Fla. 1974, 297 So.2d 289.
¶2Appellant’s second point is an attack upon the taped confession. We find that point to be without merit, finding that the authorities substantially met the require*249ments of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 469, 470, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
¶3Affirmed.