PER CURIAM. We originally accepted review of Woodson v. State, 864 So.2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal certified conflict with the Second District’s decision in Young v. State, 566 So.2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). See Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Upon closer inspection of these two cases, we have determined that no genuine conflict exists between them because they are factually and legally distinguishable. Accordingly, this case is hereby dismissed. It is so ordered. PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. PARIENTE, C.J., concurs with an opinion, in which BELL, J., concurs.