applied to non-arrest situations was pending on review in the Florida Supreme Court in Tillman v. State, 934 So.2d 1263 (Fla.2006). After this court per curiam affirmed petitioner’s convictions, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in Tillman that section 776.051(1) did not apply to non-arrest situ ations, such as the unlawful detention arising from the illegal traffic stop in this case. Although appellate counsel cited Tillman in the initial brief and noted that the supreme court had granted review in that case, counsel failed to request, under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330(a), a written opinion or citation opinion that would have permitted the Florida Supreme Court to exercise jurisdiction over our decision in the direct appeal. See Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981) (<HOLDING>). On direct appeal, the State relied on
holding that a district court opinion which cites as controlling authority a decision that is either pending review in or has been reversed by this court continues to constitute prima facie express conflict and allows this court to exercise its jurisdiction holding that a district court of appeal opinion which cites as controlling authority a decision that is either pending review in or has been reversed by the court constitutes prima facie express conflict and allows the court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction holding a per curiam affirmance from a florida district court of appeal is not renewable by the florida supreme court holding that district court opinion which cites controlling authority that is pending review in florida supreme court allows supreme court to exercise jurisdiction holding that the supreme court will not issue advisory opinion on issue not before the court