State v. Parker
2017 Ohio 7484
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2011 Parker pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and having a weapon while under disability; a juvenile delinquency adjudication was used as a "prior conviction" notice that triggered a mandatory 8-year sentence.
- Parker reserved and later raised an Apprendi-based challenge to R.C. 2901.08 (using juvenile adjudications as prior convictions) on direct appeal; the Eighth District rejected it and the Ohio Supreme Court declined review.
- In 2016 the Ohio Supreme Court decided State v. Hand and held that juvenile adjudications cannot be treated as the "fact of a prior conviction" for sentence-enhancement purposes under Apprendi/Alleyne.
- After Hand, Parker filed a motion to vacate his conviction and mandatory sentence arguing Hand applies retroactively to invalidate the prior-conviction notice and the weapons-under-disability conviction element premised on the juvenile adjudication.
- The trial court denied relief; the Eighth District majority reversed in part, holding (1) Hand announced a new substantive rule that applies retroactively to collateral cases and (2) Parker’s mandatory sentence based solely on the juvenile adjudication must be vacated; the court left unresolved the extent to which Hand affects the weapons-under-disability disability element.
- A dissent (Judge Sean C. Gallagher) argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction because Parker’s sentence is voidable (not void) and because R.C. 2953.23’s successive-petition exception applies only to new U.S. Supreme Court rules, so Hand is not a basis for collateral relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Parker) | Defendant's Argument (State / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State v. Hand applies retroactively on collateral review | Hand announced a new constitutional rule that is substantive and thus retroactive; Parker was "unavoidably prevented" from filing until Hand | Trial court denied relief; dissent argues Hand (an Ohio Supreme Court decision) is not a basis for a successive petition under R.C. 2953.23 and Parker’s sentence is voidable, so court lacked jurisdiction | Majority: Hand announced a new substantive rule that applies retroactively to collateral cases; Parker meets R.C. 2953.23(A)(1) threshold |
| Whether Parker’s mandatory 8-year sentence (and prior-conviction notice) must be vacated because it relied solely on a juvenile adjudication | The juvenile adjudication cannot be treated as a prior conviction to trigger a mandatory term under R.C. 2929.13(F)(6) after Hand; thus the mandatory enhancement is invalid | State maintained prior precedent (including Parker I) supported using juvenile adjudications; trial court denied vacatur | Majority: trial court abused discretion in denying relief as to the mandatory sentence based on the juvenile adjudication; remand for further proceedings |
| Whether the weapons-under-disability conviction (disability element based on juvenile adjudication) must be vacated | Parker contends R.C. 2923.13’s disability element premised on juvenile adjudications is invalid under Hand | State argues Hand was limited to sentencing enhancement context and did not address disability statutes; courts have declined to extend Hand to R.C. 2923.13 | Majority: left unresolved in substance; noted other courts declined to extend Hand to weapons disability statutes and did not vacate that conviction here |
| Jurisdiction/timing under postconviction statute (R.C. 2953.21/.23) | Parker: preserved the issue on direct appeal but was "unavoidably prevented" from full relief until Hand; thus successive petition is permitted | Dissent/State: R.C.2953.23’s retroactivity exception is limited to U.S. Supreme Court decisions; Parker cannot satisfy successive-petition requirements | Majority: finds Parker met R.C. 2953.23(A)(1) (new rule and unavoidable prevention) and abused discretion standard supports partial reversal; dissent would affirm for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (holds facts that increase penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (extends Apprendi to facts that increase mandatory minimums)
- State v. Hand, 149 Ohio St.3d 94 (Ohio 2016) (juvenile adjudications cannot be treated as prior convictions for sentence enhancement under Apprendi)
- Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. (2016) (discusses Teague retroactivity framework and when new rules are substantive and therefore retroactive)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. (2016) (Miller announced a substantive rule applicable retroactively)