Can Adult Portion of Juvenile's 'Blended' Sentence Be Imposed Based on Findings by Judge Rather Than Jury?
When Serious Youthful Offender Commits New Crime While in Juvenile Prison
8th District Court of Appeals (Cuyahoga County)
* When a juvenile receives a blended juvenile/adult sentence based on his conviction as a “serious youthful offender,” and the state later moves to invoke the stayed adult portion of that sentence based on the offender’s criminal conduct while incarcerated in a juvenile facility, does the court’s imposition of the adult prison term pursuant to R.C. 2152.14 − based on factual findings made by a judge rather than a jury and under a standard of proof that is less than “beyond a reasonable doubt” − violate the defendant’s constitutional due process rights under Blakely v. Washington and State v. Foster?
* When a required term of postrelease control was not imposed as part of the adult portion of a blended sentence in a serious youthful offender case, does the juvenile court retain jurisdiction to correct that omission by resentencing the defendant to add a term of postrelease control after the defendant has reached the age of 21?
BACKGROUND: In Blakely v. Washington, decided in June 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court held that when a criminal defendant is found guilty by a jury, it is unconstitutional for the defendant’s sentence to be enhanced beyond the minimum penalties applicable to the crime for which he was convicted unless any factual findings (except a finding of a prior conviction) justifying the enhanced sentence are made by a jury, rather than by the judge.