
    William Fenell PITTMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 91-00943.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    March 25, 1992.
    James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Kevin Briggs, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Brenda S. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Davis v. State, 528 So.2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 536 So.2d 243 (Fla.1988). We recognize that our decision in Davis is in conflict with Lang v. State, 566 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).

DANAHY, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.

PARKER, J., concurs specially.

PARKER, Judge,

concurring specially.

I concur with the majority. But for this court’s opinion in Davis, I would reverse this case because the record fails to show that Pittman waived the trial court’s required findings under Chapter 39, Florida Statutes. See Evans v. State, 594 So.2d 835 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (concurring opinion).  