Case Name: In re Application of SUPERIOR COURT
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-06-18
Citations: 471 So. 2d 171
Docket Number: No. 85-771
Parties: In re Application of SUPERIOR COURT.
Judges: ANSTEAD, C.J., and HURLEY and BARKETT, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 471
Pages: 171–172

Head Matter:
In re Application of SUPERIOR COURT.
No. 85-771.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
June 18, 1985.
Rehearing Denied July 9, 1985.
Paul Martin Wolff and Gerson A. Zwei-fach of Williams & Connolly, Washington, D.C., and Margaret L. Cooper of Jones & Foster, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellants-Larry Haley and Iain Calder.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert L. Teitler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee-State of Florida.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
At issue in this appeal is whether the trial court followed the correct procedure before entering an order requiring appellants to appear as witnesses in a California criminal proceeding pursuant to sections 942.01-942.06, Florida Statutes (1983), the Uniform Law to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Within or Without a State in Criminal Proceedings. Appellants contend that the Florida trial court failed to make an independent determination of materiality and necessity as required by section 942.02(2), Florida Statutes (1983). See generally New York v. Wagner, 79 Ill. App.3d 369, 34 Ill.Dec. 697, 398 N.E.2d 372 (1979). We decline to reach this issue, however, because the affidavits, which the parties stipulated for use by the trial court, conclusively demonstrate that each of the witnesses is material and necessary to the California criminal proceeding. Accordingly, we find that any error by the trial court in failing to strictly comply with the provisions of the Uniform Act is harmless. Accordingly, the order on appeal is
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and HURLEY and BARKETT, JJ., concur.