Given that Henderson failed to object to the State's evidence at the time it was offered, however, he is barred from raising this issue on appeal. See Foston v. State , 342 Ga. App. 508, 510 (2), 804 S.E.2d 151 (2017) (defendant's failure to challenge in the trial court the alleged deficiency in his prior conviction waived appellate review of the issue); Rubi v. State , 258 Ga. App. 815, 820 (4), 575 S.E.2d 719 (2002) ("Objections to evidence cannot be raised for the first time either in a motion for new trial or on appeal, and the admission of evidence will not be reviewed by this court where no objection was made below to its admission.") (citation and punctuation omitted). 2. Henderson argues that the trial court erred in entering a restitution order without holding a hearing or otherwise receiving any competent evidence on the issue of restitution.

2. With regard to the sufficiency of Foston’s prior conviction for family violence battery, we find that Foston failed to preserve this issue for appellate review by failing to object to the admission of the certified copy of his conviction for the purpose of sentencing. See Rubi v. State, 258 Ga. App. 815 , 820 (4) (575 SE2d 719 ) (2002) (“Objections to evidence cannot be raised for the first time either in a motion for new trial or on appeal, and the admission of evidence will not be reviewed by this [Cjourt where no objection was made below to its admission”) (citation and punctuation omitted). Moreover, this appeal *511 is not the proper remedy for challenging any deficiency in his prior conviction.

(Citation and footnote omitted.) Rubi v. State, 258 Ga.App. 815, 819(4), 575 S.E.2d 719 (2002). "[T]he erroneous admission of evidence is harmless where it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict in light of the otherwise overwhelming evidence of guilt."

See Rice v. State, 243 Ga. App. 143, 147 (3) ( 531 SE2d 182) (2000). See Rubi v. State, 258 Ga. App. 815, 820-821 (5) ( 575 SE2d 719) (2002). 10. Colon contends the prosecutor in his closing argument violated the "golden rule" by improperly placing the jurors in the shoes of the victims.

Id.Rubi v. State, 258 Ga. App. 815, 817 (1) ( 575 SE2d 719) (2002). Id.

It follows that this enumeration of error presents no basis for reversal. See Rubi v. State, 258 Ga. App. 815, 819 (4) ( 575 SE2d 719) (2002). See OCGA § 17-10-2 (c).

See Taylor v. State, 239 Ga. App. 329, 330 ( 521 S.E.2d 375) (1999) (defendant unable to sustain ineffective assistance claim where attorney fully informed him of consequences of rejecting plea); Brewer v. State, 224 Ga. App. 656, 658(4) ( 481 S.E.2d 608) (1997) (defendant who opted to go forward with trial rather than accept plea unable to establish ineffective assistance). See Rubi v. State, 258 Ga. App. 815, 819(4) ( 575 S.E.2d 719) (2002) (in order to secure reversal, defendant "must establish harm as well as error"). 3.

Brodes, supra at 326 (although two men pictured in photographic line-up appeared much older than defendant, line-up not impermissibly suggestive). See also Rubi v. State, 258 Ga. App. 815, 816-817(1) ( 575 S.E.2d 719) (2002) (line-up not impermissibly suggestive, despite defendant's claim that the other photographed individuals differed from him in skin coloration, hair, and facial hair); Brewer v. State, 219 Ga. App. 16, 20(6) ( 463 S.E.2d 906) (1995) ("The contention that the shading and tone of defendant's photograph made this photographic identification procedure unduly suggestive is without merit."); Green v. State, 219 Ga. App. 878, 880-881 ( 467 S.E.2d 203) (1996) (fact that defendant was "heavy-set" man, and several other individuals photographed were not "heavy-set," did not render photographic line-up impermissibly suggestive). See Rubi, supra; Brodes, supra.