Pearsall v. State (957 So. 2d 723, 2007)

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Assuming, without deciding, that the prosecutor’s cross-examination question was fairly susceptible of being interpreted as a comment on the appellant’s silence at the time of arrest, see State v. Hoggins, 718 So.2d 761, 768 (Fla.1998), we conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. As to his argument that the trial court erred in its sentence of him, we agree that the issue has not been properly preserved.