« Is the Fifth Circuit hesitant to deem a guideline sentence unreasonable? | Main | Hands off habeas »

August 20, 2005

More state views on juvenile adjudications and the prior conviction exception

Responding to this post about the recent Harris ruling from Oregon, which concluded that juvenile adjudications do not come within the "prior conviction" exception to the Apprendi/Blakely rule, a helpful Ohio reader informed me of a recent intermediate court ruling from Ohio on this issue.  The ruling in Ohio v. Deters, No. C-010645 (Ohio 1st App. Aug. 5, 2005)(available here), ultimately holds that juvenile adjudications do come within the "prior conviction" exception.  Along the way, the court provides this understated account of the state of the law on this issue:

In the wake of Blakely, several other Ohio appellate districts have allowed juvenile adjudications to be considered as a factor when enhancing a sentence. And several other jurisdictions outside of Ohio have also allowed juvenile adjudications as a sentencing factor under Apprendi or Blakely. Still others have rejected similar arguments.  This split will one day have to be reconciled.

August 20, 2005 at 12:35 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More state views on juvenile adjudications and the prior conviction exception:

» Sentencing Law and Policy: More state views on juvenile adjudications and the prior conviction exception from zarryo.com
Sentencing Law and Policy: More state views on juvenile adjudications and the prior conviction exception ... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 20, 2005 3:21:52 PM


Someone please explain this in simple terms that I can understand.

It seems to me that in juvenial adjudications, the child has no right to a jury trial. However, the results of that adjudication are then treated the same as adult prior convictions in cases where such convictions can be used to enhance the former child's (now adult"s) sentence.

So a child's lawer today, knowing of the future risk to his child client might reasonably advise against a guilty plea and for going to trial in some cases (like cases of difficult to prove innocence), except that a child does not have any such right. Please explain to me how this can not offent our Constitution.

Posted by: Jeannie | Aug 20, 2005 8:10:23 PM

Hello. I am a current first-year student at ITT Tech in Ohio. I am majoring in Criminal Justice. I am attempting to locate links to statistics. I am familiar with the Bureau of Justice Statistics. I need more updated information concerning juvenile delinquency, probation, house arrest, juvenile detention centers and boot camps. If you could be of assistance your efforts would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

Posted by: LaTesa Williamson | Jul 12, 2007 2:30:33 PM

I am a mother of a son, who was falsely convicted of sexual charges on Oct. 2, 2007. He was accused of touching a girl in 1984, the incident was supposedly to have occured in 83 or earlier. This old charge was used to figure his criminaol history score and to cause "persistant sexual offender" and double one charge. In 1984, he was not only a child, but was living with his father who was abusing him, and this came out at that time and he was removed from that home, but the father had hired the attorney and my son was under the treat of murder, if he did not plead guilty. He was removed from the care of this father, but the murder threat was not documented. He is now 40 years old, his present wife heard of the old accusation and used this in gaining property in a divorce, and she had her daughter make sexual charges, which were believed on the basis of the old 1984 adjudication.

Posted by: Donna Johnson | Jan 9, 2008 10:42:45 AM

toshiba satellite 2430 battery

Posted by: | Oct 14, 2008 9:19:51 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB