“identification .” Typically, [The] situation contemplated by the code and the case law is one where the victim sees the assailant shortly after the criminal episode and says, “that’s the man.” Hence, the phrase “identification of a person made after perceiving him” refers to the witness seeing a person after the criminal episode and identifying that person as the offender. Stanford v. State, 576 So.2d 737, 739-40 (Fla. 4th DCA)(footnote omitted), rev. denied, 587 So.2d 1329 (Fla.1991). Nevertheless, given the ample time during this encounter that the victim had to become aware of Simmons’ physical features and the victim’s own testimony at trial concerning the certainty of his identification of appellant, we find the error harmless. See Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537, 541 (Fla.1999)(<HOLDING>). As to his second issue on appeal, appellant
holding that the harmless error test places a burden on the state to prove that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or alternatively stated that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction holding that harmless error test is satisfied when there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction holding that error is considered harmless if it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or alternatively stated that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction holding that under the harmless error standard an appellate court must determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction holding that error is harmless if there is substantial independent evidence of guilt satisfying the reviewing court there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction