This is especially true when the original object from which derivative evidence was adduced was not available to the state at the time of trial. Baum v. State, 353 So.2d 936 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Butler v. State, 348 So.2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Defendant nonetheless contends that this court's decision in Johnson v. State, 249 So.2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), cert. dischgd., 280 So.2d 673 (Fla. 1973), controls the instant situation.
The first point is that the court erred in permitting an expert witness to give an opinion based on latent fingerprints where the original objects from which the latent fingerprints were lifted, were not produced in court. This contention is without merit and directly controlled by our recent decision in Butler v. State, 348 So.2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Also see United States v. Sewar, 468 F.2d 236 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Herndon, 536 F.2d 1027 (5th Cir. 1976). The second point is that the court erred in imposing separate consecutive sentences for robbery and for unlawful possession of a firearm, where both charges arose out of the same transaction.