State v. Boyer, 2017 Ohio 4199

Alexander D. Boyer was indicted on felonious assault, having weapons while under disability (R.C. 2923.13(A)(2)), and attempted murder; Count 2 relied on a juvenile adjudication for conduct that would have been an adult felony of violence.
R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) makes it unlawful to knowingly have or use a firearm if the person "has been adjudicated a delinquent child" for an offense that would have been a violent felony as an adult.
The Ohio Supreme Court decided State v. Hand, holding juvenile adjudications cannot be used to increase adult sentences because juveniles lack jury-trial protections applicable to criminal convictions.
The trial court dismissed Count 2 relying on Hand, treating the juvenile adjudication as constitutionally infirm for use in adult criminal proceedings.
The State appealed, arguing Hand does not bar using a juvenile adjudication as an element of the offense (status), rather than as a basis for sentence enhancement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a juvenile adjudication may serve as an element establishing the "disability" in R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) for a weapons-under-disability charge	Statute is plain: a juvenile adjudication is one listed predicate; Hand is inapplicable because R.C. 2923.13 does not require a conviction — disability can exist without a conviction	Hand bars using juvenile adjudications like convictions because juvenile proceedings lack jury-trial protections; using the adjudication to create criminal liability is as unconstitutional as enhancing a sentence	Reversed trial court. Hand does not prohibit use of a juvenile adjudication as an element of the offense under R.C. 2923.13(A); Hand addressed sentence enhancement, not the status-based element at issue here

State v. Hand, 149 Ohio St.3d 94 (Ohio 2016) (juvenile adjudication cannot be used to increase adult sentence beyond statutory maximum or mandatory minimum)
State v. Adkins, 129 Ohio St.3d 287 (Ohio 2011) (recidivism-based enhancements punish current offense as aggravated crime)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (any fact other than prior conviction that increases penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
United States v. Rodriquez, 553 U.S. 377 (U.S. 2008) (enhanced punishment for recidivists is punishment for the current offense, not for prior convictions)
Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1995) (recidivist-enhancement rationale)
Gryger v. Burke, 334 U.S. 728 (U.S. 1948) (enhanced sentence treats repeated offense as aggravated crime)
In re C.S., 115 Ohio St.3d 267 (Ohio 2007) (describing juvenile-court rehabilitative focus)