State v. Pender (661 So. 2d 304, 1995)

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Pender v. State, 647 So.2d 957 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinion in State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016 (Fla.1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The decision below is quashed and this cause is remanded for reconsideration in light of Schopp.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and SHAW, KOGAN, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

HARDING, J., dissents with an opinion, in which OVERTON, J., concurs.

HARDING, Justice,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this ease for the reasons expressed in my dissent in State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1022 (Fla.1995) (Harding, J., dissenting).

OVERTON, J., concurs.