Vidal v. State (578 So. 2d 292, 1991)

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Tingley v. State, 549 So.2d 649 (Fla.1989); Mendyk v. State, 545 So.2d 846, 849-850 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 110 S.Ct. 520, 107 L.Ed.2d 521 (1989); Buford v. State, 492 So.2d 355, 359 (Fla.1986); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986); Nunez v. State, 542 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Meadows v. State, 534 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Spivey v. State, 533 So.2d 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Beltran v. State, 530 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), approved, 566 So.2d 792 (Fla.1990); Lazarowicz v. State, 561 So.2d 392, 396-397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

We deny rehearing. However, we clarify our opinion in that we find no reversible error in any of the rulings below; but assuming .arguendo there was error with respect to the denial of leave to recall 'the mother as a witness, the error was harmless within the meaning of State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).