Juny Abraham v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED JUNY ABRAHAM, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D14-3825 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed December 16, 2016 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Robert M. Evans, Judge. James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Kathryn Rollison Radtke, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. 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 (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 judicial review after twenty years’ incarceration pursuant to the statute. REMANDED. LAWSON, C.J., SAWAYA and TORPY, JJ., concur. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
