State v. Adkins
129 Ohio St. 3d 287
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Adkins was charged with an OVI under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and faced a fourth-degree felony enhancement under R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(d).
- The State alleged Adkins had five or more prior OVIs within 20 years, including a 1987 juvenile adjudication in Delaware County.
- Adkins challenged the indictment, arguing the juvenile adjudication could not counted as a prior offense for enhancement.
- R.C. 2901.08 (effective Jan. 1, 1996) treats juvenile adjudications as convictions for enhancement purposes.
- The trial court found five admissible prior OVIs, including the juvenile adjudication, supporting the felony charge, and Adkins was convicted after a no-contest plea.
- Adkins challenged on appeal and the Ohio Supreme Court addressed whether 2901.08 applies retroactively to pre-1996 juvenile adjudications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2901.08 retroactively applies to juvenile adjudications | Adkins argues retroactivity; post-dating punishment violates notice. | 2901.08 is prospective and counts juvenile adjudications for enhancement when a new offense occurs. | Not retroactive; statute prospective and validly applied. |
| Whether juvenile adjudication can be counted toward five OVIs for enhancement | Pre-1996 juvenile adjudications cannot be counted for 4511.19(G)(1)(d). | 2901.08 allows juvenile adjudications to be counted as prior convictions for enhancement. | Juvenile adjudications may be counted; adequacy for five prior OVIs established. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Anderson, 92 Ohio St.3d 63 (2001) (juvenile proceedings are civil; adjudications differ from guilty findings)
- Hanning, 89 Ohio St.3d 86 (2000) (juvenile adjudications treated in context of delinquency vs. conviction)
- Van Fossen v. Babcock & Co., 36 Ohio St.3d 100 (1988) (retroactivity principles as a constitutional constraint)
- E. Liverpool v. Columbiana Cty. Budget Comm., 114 Ohio St.3d 133 (2007) (prospective operation of statutes and retroactivity analysis)
- Tobacco Use Prevention & Control Found. Bd. of Trustees v. Boyce, 127 Ohio St.3d 511 (2010) (retroactivity analysis and statutory interpretation guidance)
- Bielat v. Bielat, 87 Ohio St.3d 350 (2000) (retroactivity limitations and burden of new laws)
- Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738 (1994) (sentence effects tied to offense vs. prior convictions)
- Gryger v. Burke, 334 U.S. 728 (1948) (recidivism and enhanced punishment clarified)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 553 U.S. 377 (2008) (recidivism enhancements focus on latest offense)
- Miller v. Hixson, 64 Ohio St. 39 (1901) (historical retroactivity standards)