concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part:
Although I concur with the majority on all other issues, I must respectfully dissent on Issue V for reasons the error was harmless. You can never have “palpable error,” if the error is — as it was here— harmless. Here, three (3) other felony convictions of Appellant were in evidence — none of which were significantly questioned. Thus, the fact that the trial court erroneously inserted the misdemean- or in the instruction was plainly harmless. What I fear we are doing here is creating a class of palpable error lower than preserved error.
To find “palpable error” — as opposed to structural error — you must reach a level higher than harmless error; otherwise, palpable error would be a lower standard than preserved error, which, if harmless, is not reversible. While the instruction itself was admittedly defective because it misnamed the misdemeanor conviction as a prior felony conviction, the evidence presented to the jury included multiple felonies, any of which would have been sufficient to sustain the judgment from which this appeal is taken. In fact, there is no reasonable doubt that — had Appellant objected and put the trial court on notice of the problem — one of the other felony convictions would have been properly inserted in the instructions to correct the error; and the outcome of this case would have been exactly the same.
Thus, given this error was harmless beyond any doubt, I must respectfully dissent.