¶1AFFIRMED. See King v. State, 628 So.2d 486, 488 (Fla.1993); Taylor v. State, 640 So.2d 1127, 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (“Improper prosecutorial comment is subject to a harmless error analysis, and will give rise to reversal of a conviction only if the comment is so prejudicial that it vitiates the entire trial.”). See also Proctor v. State, 901 So.2d 994, 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (“[Tjhis court would not be able to address the [scrivener’s] errors because, absent the trial court’s ruling on a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, these errors were not preserved. See Brannon v. State, 850 So.2d 452, 456 (Fla.2003).”).
927 So. 2d 1026
Beasley v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided May 4, 2006
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2006-05-04
Relies on 850 So. 2d 452 - Brannon v. State · 640 So. 2d 1127 - Taylor v. State · 628 So. 2d 486 - US Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Russo Corp.
Decided 2006-05-04