wish to be mindful of in imposing a sentence over the loss of life of four Jewish people. I accept that you are a good friend, are a loving husband, and will prove to be a good father to your child as you have another child I understand. It is my sentence to downward depart by one year and impose a sentence of [double chai] 36 years, Florida state prison. While the appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in consideration of Jewish tradition and the use of chai, discretion is not involved. The essence of his claim, albeit obliquely made, is that the court used improper criteria in determining the extent of a downward departure. Although an appellate court generally may not review a sentence that is within statutory limits, an exception exists when the tr (Fla.2001) (<HOLDING>). In Nawaz, 28 So.3d at 125, the trial court
holding that any error in trial courts comparative negligence instruction was harmless where the jury found that both defendants were not negligent holding that while it was error for the regular judge to disqualify himself for only the habitual phase of the trial the error was harmless holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding that biblical references should not be used at sentencing but any error in the trial judges lone biblical reference in penalty phase of trial was harmless where jury was not exposed to the reference and the courts order stated that it did not consider any aggravators other than the two set forth in the order holding that the trial judges misconduct at trial did not prejudice the defendant in light of the courts curative instructions