Rooks v. State102 So. 3d 666 Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Check Treatment PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Hughes v. State, 22 So.3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), review dismissed, 29 So.3d 291 (Fla.2010); Ward v. State, 946 So.2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Macaluso v. State, 912 So.2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Bizzell v. State, 912 So.2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Brown v. State, 827 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Ives v. State, 993 So.2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Clayton v. State, 904 So.2d 660 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Wright v. State, 834 So.2d 879 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Sampson v. State, 832 So.2d 251 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Middleton v. State, 721 So.2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). SILBERMAN, C.J., and WHATLEY and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.