What is the standard of review for determining that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?

Using this standard, on the entirety of the record, it is clear that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Initially, we note that appellant points to nothing specific in the record to support his blanket assertion that he was denied "the ability to participate in his own defense." Rather, appellant relies on several cases finding the denial of a separate interpreter reversible error. Appellant's reliance on these cases is misplaced for two reasons. First, each of the cases upon which appellant relies was decided prior to People v. Rodriguez, which settled the issue of the proper standard of review on appeal. Second, these cases are factually inapposite to the case at bar.

Page 14