924.34, Fla. Stat. (1999) (directing appellate courts to have judgment for lesser offense entered when evidence did not prove conviction but did prove lesser offense); see also Burrell, 601 So.2d at 629; Warram v. State, 788 So.2d 323, 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (reversing conviction for burglary because evidence was insufficient and remanding for adjudication on lesser charge of trespass). Santiago also argues that fundamental error occurred because the record does not show that the venire was sworn prior to voir dire. This court has held “that fundamental error is not established by a record that fails to demonstrate, one way or the other, whether the venire received the oath required by [Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure] 3.300(a).” Pena v. State, 829 So.2d 289, 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (<HOLDING>). Because the record here fails to demonstrate,
holding that successive sales of narcotics constitute distinct offenses and may be separately prosecuted however close in time they occur recognizing that statuette serving as lamp base could be removed and sold separately recognizing that the venire may be separately sworn recognizing that immunity may be waived recognizing that a partial new trial may be granted if the issue of damages is so distinct and independent  that it can be separately tried