In Lockhart v. State, 655 So. 2d 69, 72 (Fla. 1995), this Court held that details of prior violent felony convictions involving the use or threat of violence to the victim are admissible in the penalty phase of a capital trial to help determine whether to impose a death sentence. Id. at 72. Thus, we find that this claim, if it had been preserved for appellate review, would have no merit. Likewise, Lukehart's eleventh claim, in which he contends that the prosecutor's closing argument was inflammatory and unsupported, is procedurally barred because it was not preserved by contemporaneous objection and motion for mistrial. Even if the claim were not barred, our review of the record reveals no reversible error in the closing argument in which the prosecutor asked the jury to hold Lukehart responsible for his actions despite his deprived background. We have permitted wide latitude in arguing to a jury. See Breedlove v. State, 413 So. 2d 1, 8 (Fla. 1982). the prosecution may properly argue that the defense has failed to establish a mitigating factor and may also argue that the jury should not be swayed by sympathy. See Valle v. State, 581 So. 2d 40, 47 (Fla. 1991). Thus, even if this claim were preserved, we would find it to be without merit. The court also address Lukehart's twelfth claim, in which he argues that the trial court erred regarding a restitution order and its sentencing order for Lukehart's noncapital conviction of aggravated child abuse. In light of Lukehart's failure to raise a contemporaneous objection, we find to be procedurally barred his claim that the trial court erred in its imposition of restitution. See Cole v. State, 701 So. 2d 845, 855 (Fla. 1997). Within this issue Lukehart also claims that the trial court erred in failing to fill out a sentencing guidelines scoresheet in imposing Lukehart's concurrent fifteen-year prison sentence on the aggravated child abuse conviction.