Robb, J.
Finally, the post-conviction court informed Collins that it was unable to issue a subpoena to McDowell, who resided in Florida. “A subpoena may be served at any place within the state . . . .” Ind. Trial Rule 45(E). Service of a subpoena is made in the same manner as provided by Indiana’s Rules of Trial Procedure under Rules 4.1, 4.16, and 5(B). See Ind. Trial Rule 45(C). It would seem that ordinarily an Indiana court could not compel the attendance of an out-of-state witness over whom the court does not have jurisdiction. [Footnote omitted.] However, “when permitted by the laws of the United States, this or another state or foreign country, the court upon proper application and cause shown may authorize the service of a subpoena outside the state in accordance with and as permitted by such law.” Ind. Trial Rule 45(E).2 [2 The Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Outside the State in Criminal Proceedings would be one example of a law authorizing service of a subpoena outside the state. See Ind. Code §§ 35-37-5-1 et seq.] That said, Collins’s request to subpoena McDowell did not identify any Florida or federal law permitting him to subpoena McDowell, and he does not identify any means for compelling her attendance in his appellate brief. We conclude the trial court’s denial of Collins’s request to subpoena McDowell, a Florida resident, was not an abuse of discretion.
RILEY, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.