Case Name: Mario VENERO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1999-09-22
Citations: 741 So. 2d 1189
Docket Number: No. 98-2037
Parties: Mario VENERO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before GERSTEN, GREEN, and SORONDO, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 741
Pages: 1189–1190

Head Matter:
Mario VENERO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 98-2037.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sept. 22, 1999.
Motion to Certify Question Denied Nov. 3, 1999.
John H. Lipinski, Hollywood, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Fredericka'Sands, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before GERSTEN, GREEN, and SORONDO, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the judgment entered below in all respects. See § 790.235, Fla. Stat. (1997); State v. Maxwell, 682 So.2d 83 (Fla.1996); Arnold v. State, 645 So.2d 418 (Fla.1994); Johnson v.. State, 726 So.2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Higgs v. State, 695 So.2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Love v. State, 569 So.2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); State v. Coron, 411 So.2d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We recognize that our position on the defendant's constitutional challenge to his sentence undér Chapter 95-182 is in conflict with the position taken by the Second District in Thompson v. State, 708 So.2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. granted, 717 So.2d 538 (Fla.1998). Accordingly, we certify conflict with Thompson.
Affirmed.
GERSTEN and SORONDO, JJ., concur.