offense.”). In addition to resolving the apparent conflict with Starling and Deleon, the records establish that the Fifth District correctly directed the trial court to reduce Davis’s convictions from robbery with a deadly weapon to robbery with a weapon. In both of Davis’s cases, the State charged Davis with robbery with a firearm in violation of section 812.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2001); it did not charge him with robbery with a deadly weapon. Moreover, robbery with a deadly weapon is ■ not a lesser-included offense of robbery with a firearm, although the trial court wrongly instructed on it as such. See Davis, 197 So.3d at 615 (“[I]t was error to list robbery with a deadly weapon as a lesser-included offense on the verdict forms in [Davis’s] cases,”); cf. Deleon, 66 So.3d at 395 (<HOLDING>). Rather, robbery with a weapon, on which
holding that reckless conduct was lesserincluded offense of aggravated assault by threatening another with imminent bodily injury by use of deadly weapon because the danger of serious bodily injury in the lesser offense is necessarily established when a deadly weapon is used in the commission of an offense as required for the greater offense holding in case in which defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon that same conduct could be used as element of offense and also serve as basis for deadly weapon finding holding offense of carjacking while armed with a deadly weapon may be committed by holding the open blade of a pocket knife to the victims throat whether an object is a deadly weapon  ie whether it is likely to produce death or great bodily harm  is a factual question to be answered by the jury in each case holding that carjacking with a deadly weapon is neither a necessary nor permissive lesserincluded offense of carjacking with a firearm holding that it was error to direct entry of a conviction for a permissive lesserincluded offense based on the fact that it was supported by the evidence because the greater crime was not charged in a manner that encompassed the intent element of the permissive lesserincluded offense and the jury did not make a finding regarding that intent element