issue of fundamental error in Florida

2003See Nesbitt v. State, 819 So.2d 993 , 994 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (suggesting that bench trials limit the opportunity to object to “the trier of fact’s consideration of inappropriate lesser offenses not charged by the charging documents!,]” presumably referring to the absence of jury instructions and a verdict form).

2003See Nesbitt v. State, 819 So.2d 993 , 994 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (suggesting that bench trials limit the opportunity to object to "the trier of fact's consideration of inappropriate lesser offenses not charged by the charging documentsf,]" presumably referring to the absence of jury instructions and a verdict form).

2025See Jaimes v. State, 51 So. 3d 445 , 448–49 (Fla. 2010) ("It is a fundamental principle of due process that a defendant may not be convicted of a crime that has not been charged by the state.

2019Elliot v. State, 49 So. 3d 269, 270 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

2019See Dooley v. State, 206 So. 3d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).

2018Louis did not make this double jeopardy argument in the trial court, a "double jeopardy claim presents an issue of fundamental error that may be raised for the first time on appeal." McGlorthon v. State, 908 So. 2d 554, 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

2015It held that fundamental errors are those that are “serious” and that “[i]n determining the seriousness of an error, the inquiry-must focus on the nature of the error, its qualitative effect on the sentencing process and its quantitative effect on the sentence.” Id. at 99 (citing Bain v. State, 730 So.2d 296, 304-05 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)).

2013See Banek v. State, 75 So.3d 762, 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (concluding that Banek’s appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing "to seek permission to file a supplemental brief on the issue of fundamental error in the attempted manslaughter by act instruction”); Pierce v. State, 121 So.3d 1091 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (holding that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to argue that it was fundamental error for the trial court to give the standard jury instruction for attempted manslaughter containing the erroneous element that the defendant committed an act wi

2011See, e.g., Hicks v. State, 41 So.3d 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (describing ineffective assistance on the face of the record when defense counsel failed to move for a judgment of acquittal); F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226 (Fla.2003) (explaining fundamental error when evi dence failed to show crime was committed).

2011The supreme court has held that “double jeopardy principles preclude convictions for both grand theft and organized fraud based upon the same conduct.” Pizza v. State, 945 So.2d 1203, 1206 (Fla.2006).

2011That argument, which raises an issue of fundamental error and so can be asserted for the first time on appeal, see Safrany v. State, 895 So.2d 1145, 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), has merit and requires us to vacate the grand theft conviction and remand for resentencing.

2005See Park v. State, 528 So.2d 524, 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

2003Id. at 174 (Harding, J., dissenting).

1998See Id. at 4 ; see also § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996).

1995Our supreme court, in Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So.2d 134, 137 (Fla. 1970), said: "`Fundamental error,' which can be considered on appeal without objection in the lower court, is error which goes to the foundation of the case or goes to the merits of the cause of action." In analyzing further the issue of fundamental error, our supreme court said: This Court has indicated that for error to be so fundamental that it may be urged on appeal, though not properly presented below, the error must amount to a denial of due process. ....

1993See Miller v. State, 573 So.2d 337 (Fla.1991).