committing the crime of sexual battery,” but because the conduct at issue occurred before the effective date of the amendment, the court refused to address the effect of the amendment. Id. at 471 n. 5. At the charge conference in the case at bar, Gresham requested an instruction on “lewd and lascivious” as a lesser included offense, and counsel and the judge repeatedly used the term “lewd and lascivious,” without distinguishing between the four kinds of lewd or lascivious conduct prohibited in different subsections of section 800.04. A request for an instruction must be specific to preserve for appellate review the failure to give the instruction requested. See Walls v. State, 641 So.2d 381, 387 (Fla.1994); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.390(d); Rivers v. State, 307 So.2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)(<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ERVIN, BARFIELD and VAN NORTWICK,
holding that an offense is factually lesser included if the charging instrument alleges that the means used to commit the crime charged include all of the elements of the alleged lesser included offense holding that a state trial court judges failure to instruct on a lesser included offense is not a federal constitutional matter recognizing that it is within  our power to direct entry of judgment on a lesser included offense when vacating a greater offense if the commission of the lesser offense can be established from facts that the jury actually found citations omitted holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on trespass as a lesser included offense of breaking and entering because appellant failed to advise the court which of the numerous trespass statutes he considered to be lesser included to the offense charged holding that reviewing court in a proper case may modify a judgment of conviction below and affirm it as a conviction of a lesser degree of the offense charged or of a lesser crime included therein where the errors do not affect the conviction of the lesser offense 