¶1We have for review Eanes v. State, 19 Fla.L.Weekly D2254, 1994 WL 561849 (Fla. 1st DCA October 17, 1994), which the First District Court of Appeal certified as being in conflict with Roundtree v. State, 637 So.2d 325 (Fla. 4th DCA), approved, 644 So.2d 1358 (Fla.1994); Jost v. State, 631 So.2d 1131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); and Straughan v. State, 636 So.2d 845 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Eanes v. State, 648 So.2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
¶2We recently approved the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Roundtree. State v. Roundtree, 644 So.2d 1358 (Fla.1994). Accordingly, we quash the decision under review, as it is now in conflict with our decision in Roundtree, and remand for further proceedings consistent with Roundtree.
¶3It is so ordered.
¶4. We decline to address the State's argument that Eanes' probation was tolled each time an affidavit of violation was filed in this case because the issue was not addressed by the district court.