Juny Abraham v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Juny Abraham v. State

205 So. 3d 887, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 18439

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 16, 2016

DocketCase 5D14-3825

StatusPublished

This text of 205 So. 3d 887 (Juny Abraham v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Juny Abraham v. State, 205 So. 3d 887, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 18439 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Juny Abraham appeals his sentence for robbery with a firearm following the revocation of his community control. Abraham contends that the trial court erred in four respects: 1) entering a fifty-year sentence in violation of Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010); 2) imposing a vindictive sentence; 3) failing to include his youthful offender designation in his sentencing documents; and 4) failing to note in his sentencing documents that he is eligible for judicial review after twenty years’ incarceration. We affirm on the first two issues without further discussion.

However, the State concedes error on the third and fourth issues. Abraham was initially sentenced on the underlying charge as a youthful offender. As the trial court orally ruled, Abraham retained his youthful offender status after being sentenced for violation of community control. See Christian v. State, 84 So.3d 437, 442-43 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). Furthermore, the trial court also orally ruled that Abraham was entitled to judicial review of his sentence after twenty years’ incarceration. See Barnes v. State, 175 So.3d 380, 382 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); § 921.1402(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2015). However, the sentencing order does not reflect these rulings. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to amend Abraham’s sentencing documents to reflect that he was sentenced as a youthful offender and that he is eligible for *888 judicial review after twenty years’ incarceration pursuant to the statute.

REMANDED.

LAWSON, C.J., SAWAYA and TORPY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Juny Abraham appeals his sentence for robbery with a firearm following the revocation of his community control. Abraham contends that the trial court erred in four respects: 1) entering a fifty-year sentence in violation of Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010); 2) imposing a vindictive sentence; 3) failing to include his youthful offender designation in his sentencing documents; and 4) failing to note in his sentencing documents that he is eligible for judicial review after twenty years’ incarceration. We affirm on the first two issues without further discussion.

However, the State concedes error on the third and fourth issues. Abraham was initially sentenced on the underlying charge as a youthful offender. As the trial court orally ruled, Abraham retained his youthful offender status after being sentenced for violation of community control. See Christian v. State, 84 So.3d 437, 442-43 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). Furthermore, the trial court also orally ruled that Abraham was entitled to judicial review of his sentence after twenty years’ incarceration. See Barnes v. State, 175 So.3d 380, 382 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); § 921.1402(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2015). However, the sentencing order does not reflect these rulings. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to amend Abraham’s sentencing documents to reflect that he was sentenced as a youthful offender and that he is eligible for *888 judicial review after twenty years’ incarceration pursuant to the statute.

REMANDED.

LAWSON, C.J., SAWAYA and TORPY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 So. 3d 887, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 18439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juny-abraham-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack