ENRIQUE MOLINA JR,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA,

HENDON, J.

Enrique Molina, Jr., appeals from a final judgment of conviction of simple battery as a lesser included offense of sexual battery, and burglary with intent to commit a battery. We affirm.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erroneously denied the defense objection to the prosecutor’s closing statement, wherein she stated: MS. GARG: When you’re thinking about analyzing the evidence in this case, you have to think about corroboration and whether a witness’s testimony, as the instruction says, agrees with the other testimony and evidence in the case. [The victim’s] testimony about the fact that this was a casual relationship, is corroborated by the phone records. This is not a woman who is making up a story because she’s upset. This is a woman who is testifying truthfully, and it’s corroborated - -

MR. ERICKSON: Objection, Judge, bolstering.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. GARG: -- testifying truthfully, based on the evidence. And that’s your determination to make, evaluate her credibility, based on the corroboration from the phone records, corroboration from her friends, who testified that she was completely hysterical in the hours after the crime. All of that corroborates the victim’s testimony that a crime happened. “Improper bolstering occurs when the State places the prestige of the government behind the witness or indicates that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.” Spann v. State, 985 So. 2d 1059, 1067 (Fla. 2008) (quoting Hutchinson v. State, 882 So. 2d 943, 953 (Fla. 2004)). Here, the prosecutor explained that the phone record evidence would corroborate the victim’s testimony that she had blocked Molina’s calls and texts, did not want to see him, and that he forced himself on her against her will. The prosecutor did not personally “vouch” for the victim, place the government’s credibility or prestige behind the victim, or argue or imply the prosecutor was aware of information not presented to the jury, bearing on the victim’s credibility, reliability or motive for testifying. See Austin v. State, 199 So. 3d 327, 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Instead, the prosecutor’s statement addressed why, based upon the jury instructions and the evidence, the jury should conclude that the witness was being truthful. This is permissible argument. See Johnson v. State, 858 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).

Claims of improper closing arguments by a prosecutor are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Paul v. State, 958 So. 2d 1135, 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). The comments must be viewed “within the context of the closing argument as a whole and considered cumulatively within the context of the entire record.” McArthur v. State, 801 So. 2d 1037, 1040 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). In the context of the record on appeal, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to overrule the objection. We therefore affirm the conviction and sentence below.

Affirmed.