Abrakata v. State
168 So. 3d 251
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Appellant (17 at time of offense in 2011) was convicted of attempted second-degree murder enhanced to first-degree felony based on jury finding of actual possession of a firearm.
- Jury found Appellant discharged a firearm causing great bodily harm; trial court imposed a 25-year sentence with a 25-year mandatory minimum, followed by 5 years probation.
- Appellant appeals raising three issues: (1) entitlement to a 15-year sentence-review under section 921.1402(2)(c) (2014), (2) challenge to the 25-year mandatory minimum under Graham v. Florida, and (3) trial-court errors in imposing certain costs.
- Court addresses constitutionality (Graham) first because it affects retroactive application of the 2014 juvenile-sentencing statutes.
- Court affirms on the Graham challenge and on the non-cost portions of the sentence; accepts State’s confession of error as to certain fines/surcharges not orally pronounced and remands for proper procedure on reimposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellant is entitled to review after 15 years under §921.1402(2)(c) | Appellant: 2014 juvenile-sentencing provisions should apply to allow 15-year review | State: 2014 provisions do not apply retroactively absent a Graham violation | Denied: No basis to apply 2014 statute retroactively because Graham was not violated |
| Whether 25-year mandatory minimum violates Graham v. Florida | Appellant: 25-year mandatory minimum is effectively life without parole for a juvenile and thus unconstitutional under Graham | State: 25-year term does not constitute life without parole; appellant will be released in early 40s | Affirmed: 25-year mandatory minimum does not violate Graham |
| Whether certain fines/surcharges were properly imposed | Appellant: Specific fine ($195.24) and surcharge ($9.76) improperly imposed | State: Concedes error because amounts were not orally pronounced at sentencing | Reversed and remanded: Those amounts vacated; trial court may reimpose following proper procedure (Nix) |
| Whether other challenged costs were improper | Appellant: Various other costs challenged | State: Defends imposition | Affirmed: Other costs sustained without further comment |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (juvenile life-without-parole bar for nonhomicide offenses)
- Lambert v. State, 170 So.3d 74 (affirming juvenile sentence where release occurs in middle age)
- Austin v. State, 127 So.3d 1286 (affirming lengthy juvenile sentence that did not exceed life expectancy)
- Thomas v. State, 78 So.3d 644 (affirming juvenile sentence with mandatory minimum as not life without parole)
- Nix v. State, 84 So.3d 424 (costs/fines must be orally pronounced at sentencing)