demonstrated a completed act, the jury necessarily found Harris attempted a robbery with a firearm. The State argues that in order to commit a robbery, one must first attempt to commit a robbery. We recognize the facial logic in the State’s argument. However, a comparison of the elements of an attempt to the elements of a completed robbery shows that by finding that Harris committed the robbery, the jury could not have found all of the actual elements of an attempted robbery. Elements of a robbery include that the defendant took property from the person or custody of the victim and that the property was of some value. See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 15.1. An attempt is a category two lesser included offense of robbery. See id.; see also Wilson v. State, 635 So.2d 16, 17 (Fla.1994) (<HOLDING>). In contrast to robbery, one of the elements
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 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 a state trial court judges failure to instruct on a lesser included offense is not a federal constitutional matter recognizing that attempts are category two lesser included offenses and that the judge should not instruct on an attempt if the evidence only supports a completed offense