¶1Appellant raises three points in this appeal, only one of which merits discussion. He contends that his conviction of both attempted burglary and possession of burglary tools violated the protection against double jeopardy. We held to the contrary in Jones v. State, 588 So.2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA1991), but certified conflict with Ghent v. State, 536 So.2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA1988). As in Jones, we certify conflict with Ghent.
¶2Affirmed.