¶1We have for review Innes v. State, 597 So.2d 966 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), in which the district court asserted conflict with Lang v. State, 566 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
¶2We addressed the issue in this case in Sirmons v. State, 620 So.2d 1249 (Fla.1993). Accordingly, we quash the decision below and remand for proceedings consistent with Sirmons.
¶3It is so ordered.
¶4specially concurring.
¶5I concur, but with the same reservations I expressed in Sirmons v. State, 620 So.2d 1249 (Fla.1993).