(table decision). Subsequently, Knight filed the present rule 3.800(a) motion in which he, for a third time, claimed the trial court illegally enhanced the degree of the offense based on his use of a firearm. Without a jury finding that the appellant used a firearm, the enhancement of the degree of the offense of second-degree murder from a second-degree felony to a first-degree felony was improper. See, e.g., State v. Tripp, 642 So.2d 728 (Fla.1994). However, even if the trial court erred when it enhanced Knight’s sentence, he is not entitled to relief because the error was harmless. No rational jury would have found that Knight did not use a firearm in his attempt to murder the victim. See Galindez v. State, 955 So.2d 517, 523-24 (Fla.2007). Accordingly, we find the error harmle 84) (<HOLDING>). 955 So.2d at 522-23 (emphasis added).
holding that the government was required to prove that the defendant lacked a license to possess a firearm but not that the defendant possessed the firearm for any duration of time holding that a defendant possessed a firearm in connection with a crime when the firearm was kept in a car across the street from where the defendant was selling drugs holding that an enhancement for an express threat of death may not be applied to the sentence for robbery when the threat is related to the use of the firearm and the defendant has a  924c sentence for the same firearm 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 to apply the firearm enhancement the firearm need only reflect the context of the defendants possession and the defendants ability to use the firearm to promote the controlled substance offense