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.

Defendant Cannot Attack State Sentence in Appealing his Federal Sentence

A defendant cannot appeal his federal sentence by attacking the validity of his initial state sentence by arguing that the federal sentence is unconstitutional because it runs consecutively to his state sentence.

United States v. Napolitan, 2016 BL 230906, 3d Cir., No. 15-1602, 7/19/16.

   A Third Circuit court ruled that a defendant cannot challenge his federal sentence by attacking the state sentence he had already received. This decision continues and expands upon the line of cases stemming from Custis v. United States, which prevents federal defendants from mounting attacks against past convictions that were used as prior convictions for sentencing enhancement. In this case, the defendant argued that his federal sentence was unconstitutional because it ran consecutively to his state sentence, which he contended was invalid. The court ruled that “Drawing on both the logic and language of Custis, we see no reason why state sentences should not be accorded the same respect and be subject to the same forms of substantive review afforded to state convictions.” The court then joined the Ninth, Sixth, and Second circuits and extended Custis to prevent attacks on prior convictions.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/United_States_v_Napolitan_No_151602_2016_BL_230906_3d_Cir_July_19.