
    Van WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 91-1406.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Oct. 21, 1992.
    Patrick C. Rastatter of Glass & Rastat-ter, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Talla- . hassee, and Patricia G. Lampert, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Van Williams appeals his judgment and sentence. He maintains that the trial court erred in denying his motion for severance and, thereby, admitting the confession of his codefendant, Christopher Blackwood. The trial court admitted Blackwood’s statement on the ground that it interlocked with Williams’s confession. We affirm.

Although we find that the trial court erred in admitting Blackwood’s statement because it conflicted with Williams’s confession about who committed the crime, see Roundtree v. State, 546 So.2d 1042, 1045-46 (Fla.1989), the trial court’s error was harmless. The State introduced the eyewitness testimony of the victim. He positively identified Williams as one of the robbers. The victim’s testimony, in addition to Williams’s confession and the testimony of the police officers, is sufficient to show harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 480, 92 S.Ct. 1056, 1059, 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986). Accordingly, the trial court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and GUNTHER, J., concur.

ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.

ANSTEAD, Judge,

dissenting.

I agree there was error in holding a joint trial, but I cannot agree that the error was harmless. In his statement Williams denied any involvement in the actual robbery of the victim, while his codefendant’s statement placed all the blame for the robbery on Williams. Neither defendant testified at trial. The victim, while fingering Williams as his assailant and the main actor, also stated that the codefendant was the one who actually did the robbing by ripping the victim’s pockets and taking his money. While the case against Williams was strong, I cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the result would have been the same had the jury not heard the confession of the codefendant that placed all the blame for the robbery on Williams.  