
    STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Robert L. JOHNSON, Respondent.
    No. 74251.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    May 17, 1990.
    
      Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Brenda S. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for petitioner.
    James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Brad Permar, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

We accepted for review Johnson v. State, 543 So.2d 1294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), based on apparent conflict with Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla.1987). Upon reviewing the briefs, we have determined that no conflict exists and that jurisdiction improvidently was granted. Accordingly, the petition for review is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

overton, McDonald, barkett, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

SHAW, J., dissents with an opinion, in which EHRLICH, C.J., concurs.

NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ENTERTAINED BY THE COURT.

SHAW, Justice,

dissenting.

I dissent for the same reason I dissented in State v. Hatten, 560 So.2d 1172 (Fla.1990). The district court here held that convictions for sale and simple possession cannot be based on a single act. In my opinion, this conflicts with Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla.1987), in that sale and simple possession contain different statutory elements and address different evils.

EHRLICH, C.J., concurs.  