¶1We have for review Swindle v. State, 919 So.2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), in which the Third District Court of Appeal cited with approval its decision in Espindola v. State, 855 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), rev’d sub nom. Milks v. State, 894 So.2d 924 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 368, 163 L.Ed.2d 86 (2005), and certified conflict with the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision in Milks v. State, 848 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), approved, 894 So.2d 924 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 368, 163 L.Ed.2d 86 (2005). At the time the Third District Court of Appeal issued its decision in Swindle, both Espindolaand Milks were pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3)-(4), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).
¶2The petition for review is granted. On the authority of our decision in Milks v. State, 894 So.2d 924 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 368, 163 L.Ed.2d 86 (2005), the decision under review is quashed, and this matter is remanded to the Third District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Milks.
¶3It is so ordered.