On this appeal from a judgment of conviction for possession of a controlled substance, we have considered appellant’s assertion that the traffic arrest to which the search was incident was a pretext for the search, in the sense described and condemned in State v. Holmes, 256 So.2d 32 (Fla.App.2nd, 1972), cert. disch., 273 So.2d 753 (Fla. 1973), and consequently that the *99search of appellant s person and the seizure of the controlled substance were unreasonable by constitutional standards. We find that appellant’s custodial arrest for driving without a license was lawful and without pretext. The search was therefore proper. Gustafson v. Florida, 414 U.S. 260, 94 S.Ct. 488, 38 L.Ed.2d 456 (1973).

Affirmed.