As to appellant’s attack upon the constitutionality of F.S. 39.02(5) (c), we affirm on authority of Johnson v. State, Sup.Ct. Fla.1974, 314 So.2d 573 and Davis v. State, Sup.Ct.Fla. 1974, 297 So.2d 289.

Appellant’s second point is an attack upon the taped confession. We find that point to be without merit, finding that the authorities substantially met the require*249ments of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 469, 470, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

Affirmed.

(dissenting).

It is my view that the constitutionality of Florida Statute 39.02(5)(c) was facially challenged and the trial judge held same to be constitutional; thus, pursuant to Article V of the Florida Constitution, this case should be transferred to the Supreme Court of Florida.