¶1We have for review McCalister v. State, 664 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinion in Montague v. State, 656 So.2d 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
¶2We recently quashed the decision in Montagueand held that a contemporaneous objection is necessary to preserve a Karchesky error for appellate review. State v. Montague, 682 So.2d 1085 (Fla.1996). Therefore, we approve the decision below.
¶3It is so ordered.