Robert Anthony Ortiz appeals his judgments and sentences for robbery (with discharge of a firearm) and fleeing or eluding a law enforcement officer. We agree with Ortiz that the trial court erred by allowing the State to inquire about the nature of Ortiz’s prior convictions during cross-examination. See Rodriguez v. State, 761 So.2d 381, 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Britton v. State, 604 So.2d 288, 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). However, Ortiz failed to preserve this issue for appeal, and we decline to find fundamental error. Instead, based on our review of all the evidence, we conclude that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction and, therefore, the error was harmless. See Riechmann v. State, 581 So.2d 133, 140 (Fla. 1991) (holding that improper impeachment by prior convictions was harmless given the other evidence in the case); Houston v. State, 337 So.2d 852, 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (same).

Affirmed.