the judge in violation of the right to jury trial. Id. at 18, 119 S.Ct. 1827. The Court found that strong evidence supported the judicial finding and explained that “[i]n a case such as this one, where a defendant did not, and apparently could not, bring forth facts contesting the omitted element, answering the question whether the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error does not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the jury trial guarantee.” Id. at 19, 119 S.Ct. 1827. This Court has long applied Chapman’s harmless error analysis, which we outlined in State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986), to claims of failure to instruct on an undisputed element. See Glover v. State, 863 So.2d 236, 237-38 (Fla.2003) (approving the district court’s holding that the age of t ) (<HOLDING>); State v. Overfelt, 457 So.2d 1385, 1387
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 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 to enhance a sentence because of the defendants use of a firearm the jury must find the defendant guilty of a crime involving a firearm or otherwise specifically find that a firearm was used holding that even if the minimum mandatory exceeds the statutory maximum the court must impose the minimum mandatory holding that the trial court was not entitled to impose a threeyear mandatory minimum sentence on a defendant convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon where the jury verdict did not specifically find actual possession