State v. Parker, 2012 Ohio 4741

Parker, accompanied by codefendants, drove to an eastside Cleveland pet store to commit a robbery; Scott and Carrington entered the store, gunfire occurred, Scott was wounded, and Parker drove them to the ER where video led to his arrest.
Parker was indicted on multiple counts, including aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, kidnapping, felonious assault, carrying a concealed weapon, weapons while under disability, and theft, with various firearm specs and notices.
Parker pled guilty to aggravated robbery (a first-degree felony) and having weapons while under disability (a third-degree felony) in exchange for the state's dismissal of other charges and his cooperation.
The trial court sentenced Parker to eight years in prison with five years postrelease control, following his guilty plea and cooperation agreement.
On appeal, Parker raises two assignments: (1) R.C. 2901.08 (prior juvenile adjudications as convictions for enhancement) violates constitutional rights; (2) his sentence is disproportionate to co-defendants Scott and Carrington.
The court reviews a pre-plea constitutional issue despite a guilty plea, concluding that R.C. 2901.08 is not unconstitutional and that no plain error occurred in the sentence comparison.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of R.C. 2901.08 as an enhancement	Parker argues juvenile adjudications qualify as prior convictions for enhancement, violating Apprendi/Blakely due to lack of jury findings.	Parker contends juvenile adjudications are not convictions and thus cannot support enhanced adult sentences under Apprendi.	R.C. 2901.08 valid; juvenile adjudications may support sentence enhancement without Apprendi jury requirements.
Proportionality of Parker's sentence	Parker asserts his eight-year sentence is disproportionate to Scott's and Carrington's sentences.	Parker did not preserve a proportionality challenge in the trial court.	No plain error; issue is overruled.

State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (1986) (addresses waiver of constitutional issues at trial)
State v. Cargile, 2009-Ohio-4939 (Ohio Supreme Court 2009) (recognizes discretion to review constitutional issues raised on appeal)
Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973) (precludes claims on pre-plea rights for valid guilty plea claims)
Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61 (1975) (plea establishes guilt and waives only certain constitutional challenges related to factual guilt)
State v. Wilson, 58 Ohio St.2d 52 (1979) (distinguishes rights in juvenile adjudications from adult jury trial rights)
State v. Adkins, 129 Ohio St.3d 287 (2011) (upholds retroactivity and validity of R.C. 2901.08; punishment is for current offense)
People v. Nguyen, 46 Cal.4th 1007 (2009) (supports admissibility of prior juvenile adjudications for enhancement where reliable)
Crowell v. United States, 493 F.3d 744 (6th Cir. 2007) (constitutional due process for using juvenile adjudications as ACCA predicates)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (fundamental requirement for jury findings on sentence-enhancing facts)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (limits sentence enhancements to jury-found facts beyond the charged conduct)