State v. Hand (Slip Opinion)
149 Ohio St. 3d 94
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Adrian Hand Jr. pleaded no contest to multiple first- and second-degree felonies and firearm specifications in Montgomery County; parties disputed whether a prior juvenile adjudication should trigger mandatory minimums.
- R.C. 2929.13(F)(6) requires mandatory prison terms for certain first- or second-degree felonies when the offender previously was "convicted" of such felonies; R.C. 2901.08(A) treats specified juvenile adjudications as "convictions" for sentencing purposes.
- The trial court treated Hand’s juvenile adjudication for aggravated robbery as a prior conviction and imposed mandatory three-year terms on several counts, resulting in an aggregate six-year mandatory sentence.
- The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed; Hand appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court raising due-process and Sixth Amendment (Apprendi) claims.
- The Ohio Supreme Court held R.C. 2901.08(A) unconstitutional as applied: juvenile adjudications cannot be treated as prior convictions for sentence-enhancement purposes because juveniles lack a constitutional right to jury trial, and Apprendi’s prior-conviction exception presumes a jury trial.
- Judgment reversed and case remanded for resentencing without treating the juvenile adjudication as a conviction for enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Hand's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prior juvenile adjudication may be treated as a prior "conviction" to trigger mandatory adult sentencing under R.C. 2929.13(F)(6) | Using the juvenile adjudication to mandate a harsher adult sentence violates due process and Apprendi because juveniles are not afforded a jury trial | Legislature may treat juvenile adjudications as convictions for recidivism; juvenile proceedings afford sufficient procedural safeguards for reliability | R.C. 2901.08(A) is unconstitutional for this purpose; juvenile adjudications cannot be used as prior convictions to enhance adult sentences beyond statutory maxima or to increase mandatory minimums |
| Whether Apprendi’s prior-conviction exception encompasses nonjury juvenile adjudications | Juvenile adjudications lack the jury-trial safeguard Apprendi protects; therefore they cannot qualify as prior convictions under Apprendi | Majority of federal/state courts permit juvenile adjudications if procedurally sound; focus is on reliability, not jury right | Apprendi’s narrow exception presumes prior proceedings that included jury-trial protections; nonjury juvenile adjudications do not qualify |
| Whether due-process principles require preserving juvenile adjudications’ civil/rehabilitative character (i.e., not converting them into criminal convictions) | Converting juvenile adjudications into convictions for enhancement undermines juvenile system’s rehabilitative purpose and is fundamentally unfair | Treating adjudications as convictions is consistent with statutory scheme and legislative judgment about recidivism | Court found it fundamentally unfair and constitutionally impermissible to convert juvenile adjudications into prior convictions for sentencing enhancement |
| Remedy when a juvenile adjudication was used to impose a mandatory term | Rescind mandatory enhancement and require resentencing without counting the juvenile adjudication as a prior conviction | If constitutional problem exists, remedy could be to present prior adjudication to a jury instead of invalidating the statute | Court invalidated R.C. 2901.08(A) as applied and remanded for resentencing (did not adopt jury-submission remedy in lieu of invalidation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts that increase penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, except the fact of a prior conviction)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum also must be found by a jury)
- In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) (juveniles are entitled to fundamental constitutional protections in delinquency proceedings)
- McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971) (no Sixth Amendment right to jury trial in juvenile delinquency proceedings)
- In re C.P., 131 Ohio St.3d 513 (2012) (discussing the unique civil/rehabilitative nature of juvenile proceedings and applicable constitutional safeguards)
- State v. Adkins, 129 Ohio St.3d 287 (2011) (juvenile adjudication can be counted for certain adult-offense enhancements; analyzed retroactivity and limited application)