Case Name: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Eugenio RODRIGUEZ, Carlos I. Estrada, Rolando Fernandez, Aurelio Cicard, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-01-28
Citations: 483 So. 2d 751
Docket Number: No. 85-373
Parties: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Eugenio RODRIGUEZ, Carlos I. Estrada, Rolando Fernandez, Aurelio Cicard, Appellees.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 483
Pages: 751–751

Head Matter:
The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Eugenio RODRIGUEZ, Carlos I. Estrada, Rolando Fernandez, Aurelio Cicard, Appellees.
No. 85-373.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jan. 28, 1986.
Rehearing Denied March 3, 1986.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Richard L. Polin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Henry H. Harnage, Asst. Public Defender, Nathan and Williams and Douglas Williams, Moore & Rabin, Miami, for appel-lees.
Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The state appeals an order dismissing the information against the defendants. We reverse. The state does not have an obligation to produce witnesses for deposition. State v. Valdes, 443 So.2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Roig, 305 So.2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Once the state revealed the name and address of the informant, it fulfilled its obligation. Consequently, there was no discovery violation and the imposition of a sanction against the state, in this case dismissal of the information, was erroneous. Valdes.
Reversed and remanded.