On Motion for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.Upon consideration of the appellant’s motion for rehearing, we find the facts of this case distinguishable from those in Herring v. State, 501 So.2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), and Menna v. State, 846 So.2d 502 (Fla.2003). Accordingly, the appellant’s motion for rehearing is denied.
POLEN, GROSS and CONNER, JJ., concur.