Court Opinion

ID: 7748155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-30 20:14:09.28215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:27:38.021503
License: Public Domain

POLEN, C.J.,
concurring specially.
While the law in this district is controlled by the en banc majority’s decision in Rutherford, I still hold to the views I expressed in my dissent in that case. In particular, I believe that the State should be permitted to have a second subpoena issued, once the procedural and substantive requirements of section 315.3025(4)(d), Fla. Stat., are met. See Hunter v. State, 639 So.2d 72 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 649 So.2d 233 (Fla.1994).