JUNY ABRAHAM, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court affirmed a fifty-year robbery sentence against Graham v. Florida challenges and vindictiveness claims, but remanded to correct sentencing documents to reflect youthful offender status and judicial review eligibility after twenty years.
A trial court's fifty-year sentence for robbery with a firearm following community control revocation does not violate Graham v. Florida or constitute vindictive sentencing, but sentencing documents must be amended to reflect youthful offender status and judicial review eligibility.
[1] A youthful offender designation and eligibility for judicial review after twenty years of incarceration, when orally ruled by the trial court, must be reflected in the wr…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJuny Abraham was initially sentenced as a youthful offender for robbery with a firearm, then had his community control revoked and received a fifty-ye…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Youthful Offender Designation cases and more on FLexlaw
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 *888judicial review after twenty years’ incarceration pursuant to the statute.
REMANDED.
LAWSON, C.J., SAWAYA and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Graham v. Florida (1st Cir. 2010)
- Christian v. State, 84 So. 3d 437 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)
- Barnes v. State, 175 So. 3d 380 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)