Case Name: Curtis Bernard HAMILTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2013-02-20
Citations: 106 So. 3d 996
Docket Number: No. 1D12-0492
Parties: Curtis Bernard HAMILTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: DAVIS, PADOVANO, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 106
Pages: 996–997

Head Matter:
Curtis Bernard HAMILTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D12-0492.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Feb. 20, 2013.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Richard M. Summa, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Giselle D. Lylen, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Curtis Bernard Hamilton, appeals his convictions and sentences for attempted second-degree murder, robbery, and burglary of a dwelling with battery. Appellant raises ten issues on appeal, only one of which merits discussion.
Appellant argues that he was improperly tried and convicted of burglary of a dwelling with battery when the State charged him with burglary of a structure with battery. Although, as the State concedes, the caption of the charging document alleged burglary of a dwelling with battery while the body of the document alleged burglary of a structure with battery, burglary, which is defined in part as "[ejntering a dwelling, a structure, or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein," is a first-degree felony when an offender makes an assault or battery upon any person in the course of committing the burglary. See § 810.02(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010). The charging document cited to this statute as did Appellant's judgment. Thus, regardless of whether the victim's tent was alleged to have been a structure or a dwelling, Appellant was charged and convicted of the first-degree felony of burglary with a battery. As we have explained, a defect in an information is waived if no objection is timely made so long as the information does not wholly fail to state a crime. See State v. Burnette, 881 So.2d 693, 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Finding no fundamental deficiency in the charging document and no merit in Appellant's other arguments, we AFFIRM.
DAVIS, PADOVANO, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.