We have for review Pearson v. State, 603 So.2d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), based on express and direct conflict with Lamont v. State, 610 So.2d 435 (Fla.1992). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The opinion below is quashed to the extent it is inconsistent with Lamont and remanded for reconsideration.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, grimes, kogan and HARDING, JJ., concur.