not justified in using force in resisting an arrest by a police officer). We affirmed without a written opinion. At the time of the appeal, the question of whether section 776.05 v. State, 590 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), and Harris v. State, 801 So.2d 321, 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), decisions applying section 776.051(1) and holding that the illegality of a detention was not a defense to charges of battery on a law enforcement officer. The supreme court’s decision in Tillman overruled Dominique and Harris. See also Perry v. State, 953 So.2d 459 (Fla.2007) (quashing a decision of this court which had relied on these cases and section 776.051(1)). The supreme court’s decision in Tillman is controlling and applies to petitioner. See Rodriguez v. State, 964 So.2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>). Based on the undisputed facts in this case,
holding that a new rule for conducting criminal prosecutions should be applied to all cases pending on direct review or not yet final holding that tillman applied to cases then pending on direct appeal ie in the pipeline holding that batson does apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review recognizing that the pipeline theory allows a defendant to seek application of a new rule of law if the case is pending on direct review or not yet final and the defendant timely objected at trial holding that the clayton acts provisions on injunctive relief applied to pending cases