the trial judge’s comment concerning life imprisonment violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390(a) (2002). Rule 3.390(a) states, “[e]xeept in capital cases, the judge shall not instruct the jury on the sentence that may be imposed for the offense for which the accused is on trial.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.390(a) (2002). The purpose of Rule 3.390(a) is to minimize the possibility of jury sympathy based on the defendant’s potential sentence, and to control the jury’s exercise of its pardon power to ensure that the jury decides a case according to the law and evidence presented, rather than the consequences of its verdict. Legette v. State, 718 So.2d 878, 880-81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Violations of Rule 3.390(a) are reviewed to determine whether prejudicial error occurred. Id. at 881 (<HOLDING>). “Prejudicial error” is defined in Section
holding that where jury was instructed on both a greater offense and lesserincluded offense and the jury convicted on the lesserincluded offense the double jeopardy provision prohibited retrial on the greater offense holding on habeas review that counsels failure to object to improper argument at trial did not prejudice petitioner where other evidence supported a guilty verdict and the jury was told closing argument was not evidence holding that a prosecutors disclosure during closing argument that lesserincluded offense was a misdemeanor violated rule 3390a but did not prejudice defendant recognizing that a lawyers comments during closing argument may explain away the alleged prejudicial effect of the opposing parties closing argument comments holding thatany error made by the state in its election of offenses was cured during the prosecutors closing argument emphasis added