Venero v. State

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.