an error is harmless might suggest an error is per se reversible; however, it does not make it so. As for the error Knight raises, any question as to whether it is, or ever was, per se reversible was answered by the supreme court in Galindez: Finally, in [Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212, 126 S.Ct. 2546, 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (2006) ], the Supreme Court reversed the Washington Supreme Court’s holding that harmless error analysis does not apply to [Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000),] error. Accordingly, to the extent some of our pre-Apprendi decisions may suggest that the failure to submit factual issues to the jury is not subject to harmless error analysis, Re-cuenco has superseded them. See, e.g., State v. Estevez, 753 So.2d 1, 7 (Fla.1999) (<HOLDING>); State v. Hargrove, 694 So.2d 729, 730
holding that a sentence was based on a mandatory statutory minimum sentence even though it was lowered under another statute holding where the statutory minimum sentence exceeds the guidelines sentence a substantialassistance downward departure begins at the mandatory minimum sentence holding that even where evidence regarding the use of a firearm is unrebutted to impose mandatory minimum sentence a jury must make that finding holding that even if the minimum mandatory exceeds the statutory maximum the court must impose the minimum mandatory holding that even where the evidence is uncontroverted to sentence a defendant to a minimum mandatory sentence for trafficking the jury must make express findings of the amount of cocaine involved