MOODY v. STATE

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Moody v. State, 696 So.2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), which expressly and directly conflicts with decisions of the Third and Fourth District Courts of Appeal. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

We quash the decision below and remand for further proceedings consistent with our opinion in State v. Hudson, 22 Fla. L. Weekly S514 (Fla. Aug. 28, 1997).

KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, HARDING and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

WELLS, J., dissents with an opinion, in which GRIMES, J., concurs.

WELLS, J., dissenting.

I must dissent for the same reasons stated in my dissent inHudson v. State, 22 Fla. L. Weekly S514 (Fla. Aug. 28, 1997).

GRIMES, J., concurs.