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 charging document is fundamental error."); J.V. v. State, 221 So.3d 689, 690 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (holding that petition charging juvenile was fundamentally defective for failing to allege essential elements of the crime for which the juvenile was tried). Although 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).

Additionally, there is no lesser included charge to the conveyance offense, which further supports the conclusion that evidence was "insufficient to show that a crime was committed at all." Kirkland v. State, 225 So.3d 920, 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (quoting F.B., 852 So.2d at 230 ) ). Simply put, the evidence was insufficient to prove that Mr. Morris's vehicle was a necessary use component of trafficking in a controlled substance or that it was intended for such use. Because this conviction resulted in fundamental error, we must reverse and vacate only the conviction for possession of a conveyance used for the trafficking of controlled substances.

Id. at 834–35.The First District considered a similar situation in Kirkland v. State , 225 So.3d 920 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). That court noted that the defendant had been charged with two counts of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, against different victims, but convicted of felony battery on one count. The State conceded that there was no evidence of the requisite great bodily harm.