PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Henriquez v. State, 513 So.2d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Because appellant's issue concerning court costs has recently been decided adversely to him, Barker v. State, 518 So.2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), wherein we certified a question of great public importance to our supreme court, we certify the same question in this case.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.
SCHOONOVER, J., specially concurs.
SCHOONOVER, Judge, specially concurring.
Since Henriquez supports the result reached herein and is the law of this district on an indigent defendant's right to appeal the imposition of costs where he failed to object when the trial court orally pronounced its intention to impose costs, I concur. Based upon my understanding of Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla. 1984), however, I incorporate by reference my specially concurring opinion in Barker.