Florida Statutes (2001), “[sjimilar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, including ... proof of motive, ... intent, ... or absence of mistake or accident.” § 90.404(2), Fla. Stat. (2001). The collateral evidence, however, is not admissible for the sole purpose of proving bad character or propensity. The primary test for admissibility of collateral crimes evidence is relevancy. See Griffin v. State, 639 So.2d 966 (Fla.1994), cert. denie of this relevant evidence substantially outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice especially since it did not become a feature of the trial, § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2001), and the 1992 attack was not too remote in time. See Duffey v. State, 741 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>). Finally, we find that any error in the
holding that collateral crime that occurred twelve years prior to charged offense not too remote in time holding that a six year span between the prior offense and the charged conduct did not render the previous conviction too remote to be relevant to the defendants intent in the case then at bar holding that prior distribution and possession convictions that were eight and ten years before the charged conduct occurred were not too remote holding that eight years between prior convictions and the beginning of the charged conspiracy was not too remote holding it is fundamental error to convict a defendant of crime not charged and which is not a lesser included offense of the charged crime