charging document is fundamental error in Florida

6 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2025 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
Jaimes v. Stategreen fla · 2010 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2012–2025 2 sentences 2025"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[;] . . . [t]herefore, an error that directly results in such a conviction is by definition fundamental." Jaimes v. State, 51 So. 3d 445, 448-49 (Fla. 2010); see also Figueroa v. State, 84 So. 3d 1158, 1161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) ("[A charging document] is fundamentally defective where it . . . omits an essential element of the crime."); Pena v. State, 829 So. 2d 289 , 292 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ("[T]he failure to allege an essential element of an offense in the char 2012See, e.g., Jaimes v. State, 51 So.3d 445, 448 (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.”); Price v. State, 995 So.2d 401, 404 (Fla.2008) (reiterating that the failure to allege an essential element of a crime may be raised in a habeas petition); Harris v. State, 76 So.3d 1080, 1081 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (stating that it is a denial of due process to convict a defendant of an uncharged crime); Pena v. State, 829 So.2d 289 , 292 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“[T]he failure to allege an essential elem	2	2
Pena v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 2002 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2012–2025 2 sentences 2025"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[;] . . . [t]herefore, an error that directly results in such a conviction is by definition fundamental." Jaimes v. State, 51 So. 3d 445, 448-49 (Fla. 2010); see also Figueroa v. State, 84 So. 3d 1158, 1161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) ("[A charging document] is fundamentally defective where it . . . omits an essential element of the crime."); Pena v. State, 829 So. 2d 289 , 292 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ("[T]he failure to allege an essential element of an offense in the char 2012See, e.g., Jaimes v. State, 51 So.3d 445, 448 (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.”); Price v. State, 995 So.2d 401, 404 (Fla.2008) (reiterating that the failure to allege an essential element of a crime may be raised in a habeas petition); Harris v. State, 76 So.3d 1080, 1081 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (stating that it is a denial of due process to convict a defendant of an uncharged crime); Pena v. State, 829 So.2d 289 , 292 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“[T]he failure to allege an essential elem	1	2
Figueroa v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 2012 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025"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[;] . . . [t]herefore, an error that directly results in such a conviction is by definition fundamental." Jaimes v. State, 51 So. 3d 445, 448-49 (Fla. 2010); see also Figueroa v. State, 84 So. 3d 1158, 1161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) ("[A charging document] is fundamentally defective where it . . . omits an essential element of the crime."); Pena v. State, 829 So. 2d 289 , 292 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ("[T]he failure to allege an essential element of an offense in the char	1	1
Magnusson v. Florida Department of Revenuegreen fladistctapp · 2017 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025Although exceptions exist in certain circumstances "where the defendant had an opportunity to object," courts have recognized that "[a] defendant tried at bench trial has limited opportunities to object to an erroneous lesser-included offense, primarily because there is no charge conference or verdict form." Kirkland v. State, 225 So. 3d 920, 922-23 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (collecting cases).	1	1
Price v. Stategreen fla · 2008 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 1 sentence 2012See, e.g., Jaimes v. State, 51 So.3d 445, 448 (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.”); Price v. State, 995 So.2d 401, 404 (Fla.2008) (reiterating that the failure to allege an essential element of a crime may be raised in a habeas petition); Harris v. State, 76 So.3d 1080, 1081 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (stating that it is a denial of due process to convict a defendant of an uncharged crime); Pena v. State, 829 So.2d 289 , 292 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“[T]he failure to allege an essential elem	1	1
Whitfield v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 2011 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 1 sentence 2012See, e.g., Jaimes v. State, 51 So.3d 445, 448 (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.”); Price v. State, 995 So.2d 401, 404 (Fla.2008) (reiterating that the failure to allege an essential element of a crime may be raised in a habeas petition); Harris v. State, 76 So.3d 1080, 1081 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (stating that it is a denial of due process to convict a defendant of an uncharged crime); Pena v. State, 829 So.2d 289 , 292 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“[T]he failure to allege an essential elem	1	1
Levesque v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 2001 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004See, e.g., Levesque v. State, 778 So.2d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Mateo v. State, 757 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).	1	1
Richardson v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 1997 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 1 sentence 2000See, e.g., Richardson v. State, 694 So.2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (holding that a revocation of probation based on a violation not alleged in the charging document is fundamental error).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

Case	Cited	Years
Velasquez v. State green fladistctapp · 1995 2 sentences 2002NOTES [1] Cases such as K.H. v. State, 763 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), Velasquez v. State, 654 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), Jaramillo v. State, 659 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and Mauldin v. State, 696 So.2d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), which hold that conviction for a lesser offense not within the ambit of the charging document is fundamental error, are distinguishable. 2002NOTES [1] We are aware of the line of cases holding that the failure to allege an essential element of an offense in the charging document is fundamental error, see State v. Von Deck, 607 So.2d 1388 (Fla.1992); Velasquez v. State, 654 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); State v. Roberts, 616 So.2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), and that such an issue can be raised at any time.	2	2002–2002
Lacey v. State green fladistctapp · 2017 1 sentence 2025"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[;] . . . [t]herefore, an error that directly results in such a conviction is by definition fundamental." Jaimes v. State, 51 So. 3d 445, 448-49 (Fla. 2010); see also Figueroa v. State, 84 So. 3d 1158, 1161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) ("[A charging document] is fundamentally defective where it . . . omits an essential element of the crime."); Pena v. State, 829 So. 2d 289 , 292 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ("[T]he failure to allege an essential element of an offense in the char	1	2025–2025
Mateo v. State green fladistctapp · 2000 1 sentence 2004See, e.g., Levesque v. State, 778 So.2d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Mateo v. State, 757 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).	1	2004–2004
State v. Von Deck green fla · 1992 1 sentence 2002NOTES [1] We are aware of the line of cases holding that the failure to allege an essential element of an offense in the charging document is fundamental error, see State v. Von Deck, 607 So.2d 1388 (Fla.1992); Velasquez v. State, 654 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); State v. Roberts, 616 So.2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), and that such an issue can be raised at any time.	1	2002–2002
Mauldin v. State green fladistctapp · 1997 1 sentence 2002NOTES [1] Cases such as K.H. v. State, 763 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), Velasquez v. State, 654 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), Jaramillo v. State, 659 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and Mauldin v. State, 696 So.2d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), which hold that conviction for a lesser offense not within the ambit of the charging document is fundamental error, are distinguishable.	1	2002–2002
State v. Gray green fla · 1983 1 sentence 2002State v. Gray, 435 So.2d 816 (Fla.1983).	1	2002–2002
Jaramillo v. State green fladistctapp · 1995 1 sentence 2002NOTES [1] Cases such as K.H. v. State, 763 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), Velasquez v. State, 654 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), Jaramillo v. State, 659 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and Mauldin v. State, 696 So.2d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), which hold that conviction for a lesser offense not within the ambit of the charging document is fundamental error, are distinguishable.	1	2002–2002
State v. Roberts neutral fladistctapp · 1993 1 sentence 2002NOTES [1] We are aware of the line of cases holding that the failure to allege an essential element of an offense in the charging document is fundamental error, see State v. Von Deck, 607 So.2d 1388 (Fla.1992); Velasquez v. State, 654 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); State v. Roberts, 616 So.2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), and that such an issue can be raised at any time.	1	2002–2002
KH v. State green fladistctapp · 2000 1 sentence 2002NOTES [1] Cases such as K.H. v. State, 763 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), Velasquez v. State, 654 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), Jaramillo v. State, 659 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and Mauldin v. State, 696 So.2d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), which hold that conviction for a lesser offense not within the ambit of the charging document is fundamental error, are distinguishable.	1	2002–2002

Statutes the citing opinions construe

FL § 784.021 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check