No. 73191 | Fla. | Sep 21, 1989
We have for review Sitar v. State, 530 So. 2d 1000" court="Fla. Dist. Ct. App." date_filed="1988-08-24" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/molden-v-state-7568337?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7568337">530 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), based on express and direct conflict with State v. McGriff, 537 So. 2d 107" court="Fla." date_filed="1989-01-19" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-v-mcgriff-1130418?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1130418">537 So.2d 107 (Fla.1989). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The district court in this case directly relied on its prior opinion in Abt v. State, 528 So. 2d 112" court="Fla. Dist. Ct. App." date_filed="1988-07-13" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/abt-v-state-1793673?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1793673">528 So.2d 112 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), which subsequently has been quashed by this Court. Abt v. State, 541 So. 2d 614" court="Fla." date_filed="1989-04-13" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/abt-v-state-1109515?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1109515">541 So.2d 614 (Fla.1989) (citing McGriff). Accordingly, we quash the opinion below and remand for reconsideration in light of this Court’s holdings in McGriff and Abt.
It is so ordered.