Ohio: Juvenile Adjudication Cannot be used as Priors in Adult Sentencing

Ohio joins a number of jurisdictions preventing juvenile adjudications to be used as prior convictions during sentencing for adults because it violates due process principals

State v. Hand, 2016 BL 276326, Ohio, No. 2014-1814, 8/25/16.

   The Ohio Supreme Court held that a state statute allowing juvenile convictions to count as priors during sentencing as an adult was unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey and its line of case law. It found that such statutes violate due process requirements because there is not a right to a jury in juvenile cases. The supreme court followed Apprendi, finding that a right to a jury trial is required because “other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

   While many federal circuit courts have issued opinions regarding this issue, finding that juvenile crimes can be used to enhance subsequent adult sentences under the Armed Career Criminal Act, state supreme courts are divided on the same issue. Ohio joins the minority of jurisdictions that do not enhance sentences based on juvenile adjudication.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/State_v_Hand_2016Ohio5504_Ohio_Aug_25_2016_Court_Opinion.

'All Passwords' Condition to Parole is Overbroad

A probation condition which requires a juvenile convicted of burglary to surrender every password used in his electronic devices, and to submit to warrantless searches of those devices, is overbroad.

 

People v. Ricardo P., 2015 BL 348208, Cal. Ct. App., No. A144149, 10/22/15

   A juvenile was sentenced to parole conditions requiring that he surrender all of the passwords for accounts in his electronic devices, and to submit to warrantless searches of those devices. The California Court of Appeal, First District, ruled that those conditions were not tailored narrowly enough to the purpose of rehabilitating the specific offender. The conditions did not minimize interference with his Constitutional rights to privacy, speech, and association.

    The court accepted that a condition for the search of an offender's electronics can be permitted so long as it is reasonably related to the goal of preventing future criminality, but that this condition as the court "interpreted it, does not limit the types of data on or accessible through his cell phone that may be searched in light of this purpose."

    The condition is overly broad because it "permits review of all sorts of private information that is highly unlikely to shed any light on whether Ricardo is complying with the other conditions of his probation, drug-related, or otherwise."

    The case was remanded to the juvenile court to tailor the conditions to fit the offender's situation given the criminal history.

    The court did also not completely write off this type of parole condition. The court recognized a sister appellate court's case about the surrender of all passwords in a case involving gang activity. In that case the 'all passwords' condition was acceptable because the offender had admitted to gang activity and there was evidence that he'd used social media to promote gang activity.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/People_v_Ricardo_P_No_A144149_2015_BL_348208_Cal_App_1st_Dist_Oct?1448298181