Opinion
No. 2D14–2967.
12-05-2014
Lanmont Allen, pro se.
Lanmont Allen, pro se.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Galindez v. State, 955 So.2d 517 (Fla.2007) ; Tucker v. State, 726 So.2d 768 (Fla.1999) ; Hughes v. State, 22 So.3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ; Knight v. State, 6 So.3d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ; Pratte v. State, 946 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ; McDuffie v. State, 946 So.2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ; Daniel v. State, 935 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ; Brown v. State, 827 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ; Scott v. State, 962 So.2d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ; Coke v. State, 955 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ; Simms v. State, 949 So.2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ; Rainey v. State, 938 So.2d 632 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) ; Harris v. State, 789 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
MORRIS, BLACK, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.