Juvenile convictions shouldn’t enhance adult sentences, court rules

Prior juvenile court convictions can’t be used to enhance the sentence of an adult, a split Ohio Supreme Court ruled Thursday, reversing a lower court decision in a Montgomery County case.

The 4-3 decision stated that increasing an adult’s prison term based on juvenile adjudications violates state and federal constitutions.

Ohio’s top court reversed the Second District Court of Appeals, which had affirmed a sentence that included three years plus another three years for a firearm specification on Adrian Hand Jr..

In Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, Hand pleaded guilty to three first-degree and two second-degree felonies in 2012 case that began in 2012 and where a sentence was handed down in 2013.

Judge Dennis Langer factored in Hand’s juvenile record while crafting a sentence. Hand had a juvenile conviction for aggravated robbery, which was considered a prior felony.

Writing for the majority, Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger said that because a juvenile adjudication does not provide the right to a jury trial, it cannot be used to increase an adult sentence.

In a dissent, Justice Terrence O’Donnell wrote that most federal and state court decisions have found a juvenile adjudication can be used to enhance a sentence even though there is no right to a jury trial in those proceedings.

Juvenile court convictions for weapons and sex offender status are factors that have been considered in some Montgomery County cases.

“We are aware of today’s decision by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Hand,” said Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office spokesman Greg Flannagan. “We are reviewing the opinion to sort out the full implications and possible effect on related issues.”

Hand appealed to the Second District, which affirmed the trial court’s decision in a split 2-1 vote.

The dissenting Second District judge, Mary Donovan, said that Ohio law inconsistently classified juvenile adjudications as civil for some purposes, but criminal for sentence enhancement.

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for re-sentencing.

Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justices Paul E. Pfeifer and William M. O’Neill agreed with Lanzinger. Justices Sharon L. Kennedy and Judith L. French joined the dissent.