¶1We have for review Holloman v. State, 511 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), which expressly and directly conflicts with Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987), and Morganti v. State, 524 So.2d 641 (Fla.1988), quashing 510 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
¶2We quash the decision below and remand for proceedings consistent with our opinions in Shulland Morganti.
¶3It is so ordered.