
    Ramon VIDAL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 90-347.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Feb. 12, 1991.
    On Motion for Rehearing April 16, 1991.
    Friend, Fleck & Gettis, and Geoffrey Fleck, South Miami, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Charles M. Fahlbusch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
    Before BASKIN, JORGENSON and COPE, JJ.
   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).  