WILLIAMS v. STATE (2019)

Affirmed. See Ford v. State, 802 So. 2d 1121, 1130 (Fla. 2001) (“Where a defendant waits until after the State rests its case to challenge the propriety of an indictment, the defendant is required to show not that the indictment is technically defective but that it is so fundamentally defective that it cannot support a judgment of conviction.”); State v. Burnette, 881 So. 2d 693, 694-95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“An information is fundamentally defective only where it totally omits an essential element of the crime or is so vague, indistinct[,] or indefinite that the defendant is misled or exposed to double jeopardy.”) (citation omitted); McMillan v. State, 832 So. 2d 946, 948 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (“Where the charging document is merely imperfect or imprecise, the failure to challenge it by motion to dismiss waives defect ․ The specifications of the information alleged each essential element of the crime of armed robbery with a firearm. The information sufficiently notified [the defendant] that he was charged with committing a robbery by carrying a firearm.”) (internal citations omitted).

PER CURIAM.