California Court Cites Me

Ok. I know that a blog is no place to brag. However, today a California court ruled that a prior juvenile conviction could not later be used to enhance a sentence for a subsequent crime committed as an adult. What is notable about this decision is that I had articulated this position in a published article that I penned while in law school. (http://www.cardozolawreview.com/PastIssues/SCHNEIDER.WEBSITE.pdf)

My basic argument was that the Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey had stated that except for the fact of a prior conviction, anything that increased a sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court did not require prior convictions to be submitted to a jury under the theory that the defendant had already received due process in the prior adjudication. Included in due process is the right to a jury trial. However, juveniles do not have a right to a jury trial. Hence, I argue that after Apprendi, a juvenile adjudication in which there was no right to a jury trial cannot be used to later enhance an adult sentence.

Today, a California court agreed with me. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H028798A.PDF

"The sole issue in this appeal is whether it is constitutional to use juvenile adjudications to increase the maximum punishment for an offense, in light of the United States Supreme Court’s opinions in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 (Apprendi) and Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely).In concluding that it is not, we respectfully disagree with our colleagues on this court and others, and join the small but growing number of courts across the country that have likewise concluded that Apprendi and its progeny compel us to recognize that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial is an integral part of the process that is due before a prior conviction may be used to increase the maximum sentence for a criminal offense."

Although I expect this case to be appealed to the California Supreme Court, it is an important development in the criminal law. Allowing juvenile convictions to later enhance adult sentences allows the State to pull a bait and switch on the juvenile defendant. In exchange for a more lenient justice system, the juvenile gives up certain constitutional protections, namely the right to a jury trial. However, if that juvenile commits a crime as an adult, the State argues that the juvenile conviction should be used to enhance a sentence as if the juvenile conviction was just like any other conviction. Such a process allows states to make an end run around Constitutional due process.

Anyway, I don't know if any of you will find this interesting or important. I certainly was excited. I just gave an interview to a San Francisco legal journal called "The Reporter," and I understand there may be an article on Thursday if anyone is interested.