Case Name: Terry Wayne EANES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1995-08-31
Citations: 662 So. 2d 334
Docket Number: No. 84787
Parties: Terry Wayne EANES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Judges: GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 662
Pages: 334–334

Head Matter:
Terry Wayne EANES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 84787.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Aug. 31, 1995.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 1, 1995.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender and Terry Carley, Assistant Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; James W. Rogers, Tallahassee Bureau Chief/Criminal Appeals and William J. Bak-stran, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Eanes v. State, 19 Fla.L.Weekly D2254, 1994 WL 561849 (Fla. 1st DCA October 17, 1994), which the First District Court of Appeal certified as being in conflict with Roundtree v. State, 637 So.2d 325 (Fla. 4th DCA), approved, 644 So.2d 1358 (Fla.1994); Jost v. State, 631 So.2d 1131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); and Straughan v. State, 636 So.2d 845 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Eanes v. State, 648 So.2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
We recently approved the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision in Roundtree. State v. Roundtree, 644 So.2d 1358 (Fla.1994). Accordingly, we quash the decision under review, as it is now in conflict with our decision in Roundtree, and remand for further proceedings consistent with Roundtree. We approve Jost and Straughan to the extent they are in harmony with our decision in Roundtree.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
. We decline to address the State's argument that Eanes' probation was tolled each time an affidavit of violation was filed in this case because the issue was not addressed by the district court.