Stimus argues that he is entitled to receive a new trial because the trial court erred in failing to conduct a Richardson hearing on Stimus’ claim that the State had committed a discovery violation. We agree. In Acosta v. State, 856 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), the Fourth District explained the State’s duty of disclosure during the discovery process: In Barrett v. State, 649 So.2d 219 (Fla.1994) the Florida Supreme Court reiterated that: When a defendant elects to participate in the iolation is brought to the court’s attention, the trial judge is required to conduct an inquiry, rule on whether a violation occurred, and determine whether the evidence was admissible.” Sears v. State, 656 So.2d 595, 596 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). See also Rath v. State, 627 So.2d 24 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)(<HOLDING>). However, pursuant to State v. Schopp, 653
holding that a transfer order issued by a district court in another circuit is reviewable only in the circuit of the transferor district court holding that trial courts failure to conduct richardson hearing concerning states discovery violation in not designating a detective as an expert was not harmless even though detectives testimony was brief appellate court could not say beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was not procedurally prejudiced by the discovery violation holding that an argument not made to the circuit court cannot be raised on appeal holding that when the district court improperly purported to transfer to the circuit court an action over which the circuit court lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enter its judgment which was void and dismissing the appeal from that void judgment holding that once circuit court is put on notice of a discovery violation circuit court is obligated to conduct a richardson inquiry to determine prejudicial affect if any of violation