Case Name: In the Interest of C.T., a child
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1991-07-24
Citations: 582 So. 2d 1245
Docket Number: No. 90-2352
Parties: In the Interest of C.T., a child.
Judges: LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 582
Pages: 1245–1247

Head Matter:
In the Interest of C.T., a child.
No. 90-2352.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
July 24, 1991.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Robert Friedman, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant-C.T., a child.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Melvina Racey Flaherty, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee-State of Florida.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, a minor, was charged by petition for delinquency with attempted bat tery on a law enforcement officer. At the disposition hearing, the arresting deputy testified that he was dispatched to Indian River Memorial Hospital on a disturbance call involving appellant, who was very intoxicated with an extremely high blood alcohol level of .30. The deputy, in uniform and wearing his badge, tried to get appellant up from a gurney by shaking him and touching him on the shoulders whereupon appellant took several swings at him.
Appellant testified that on the night in question he drank three bottles of Jim Beam; that he did not remember lying on the side of the road — having been picked up there by an ambulance — nor being at the hospital. He said that he did not intend to strike at a deputy.
The trial court considered disorderly intoxication to be a lesser included offense and found appellant guilty thereof, while finding him not guilty of attempted battery on a law enforcement officer because his voluntary intoxication negated the required intent. It adjudicated appellant delinquent and sentenced him to community control.
The state agrees disorderly intoxication was not within the scope of the petition, but claims the error not to be fundamental. We disagree. In Rose v. State, 507 So.2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), the court said:
It is elementary that the conviction of a crime not charged violates constitutional due process as well as the constitutional right of the accused in all criminal cases to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The violation of such constitutional rights constitutes fundamental error and is presumptively prejudicial and most certainly not within the discretion of any judge to permit.
Id. at 631-32. Disorderly intoxication was not a lesser included offense. Accordingly, we reverse.
LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., concurs specially with opinion.