¶1Appellant was convicted of two counts of DUI with serious bodily injury. He claims that because only one “driving episode” (appellant’s characterization) caused the two persons to be injured, he can only be convicted of one crime. Appellant concedes his argument is inconsistent with the holding in Melbourne v. State, 655 So.2d 126 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. granted, 662 So.2d 982 (Fla.1995), approved, 679 So.2d 759 (Fla.1996).
¶2AFFIRMED.