Tuesday, Dec. 1, 2015
Adrian L. Hand Jr. v. State of Ohio, Case no. 2014-1814
Second District Court of Appeals (Montgomery County)
Cincinnati Bar Association v. Robert Hoskins, Case no. 2015-1003
Hamilton County
Can Juvenile Record Be Used to Increase Adult’s Prison Sentence?
Adrian L. Hand Jr. v. State of Ohio, Case no. 2014-1814
Second District Court of Appeals (Montgomery County)
ISSUE: Does using a prior juvenile adjudication to enhance an adult sentence violate a defendant’s constitutional right to due process?
BACKGROUND:
In June 2013, Adrian L. Hand Jr. pleaded no contest in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court to charges that included aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping. As part of the sentencing agreement with the prosecutor, Hand agreed to a six-year prison sentence, with a mandatory three years for a firearms specification. According to R.C. 2901.08(A) and 2929.13(F)(6), there is a mandatory sentence if the offender previously was convicted of or pleaded guilty to a first-degree felony. The prosecution successfully argued that because of Hand’s juvenile adjudication in 2008 for aggravated robbery, a first-degree felony if he were convicted as an adult, he should get the full six-year sentence.
Hand appealed the sentence to the Second District Court of Appeals and contended the trial court was wrong to enhance his sentence using his juvenile record because it violated his constitutional right to due process. He also claimed his case falls within an exception set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000). In Apprendi, the court decided a prior conviction can serve as an aggravating factor for sentencing only if the conviction met the defendant’s due process rights, which includes a right to a jury trial.
The appeals court rejected Hand’s argument in a 2-1 decision. He is now asking the Ohio Supreme Court to reverse his sentence and remand for resentencing.
Hand’s Argument
Hand isn’t disputing that three years of his sentence, resulting from the firearm specification, were mandatory. What is asserted in a brief to the Ohio Supreme Court is that because there aren’t convictions or jury trials in the juvenile court, adjudication doesn’t qualify as a conviction as defined by either Apprendi or the sentencing-enhancements in state law, and he should be exempt from a mandatory prison term.
Additionally, Hand’s lawyer claims, the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision that relied on a case from the Eighth District, State v. Parker, that hasn’t been considered by the Court ignores the goals of the juvenile justice system to rehabilitate. Instead, a 2004 decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court, State v. Brown, is cited as an example of how a state supreme court ruled that a juvenile adjudication enhancing an adult’s sentence violated Apprendi.
“Allowing juvenile adjudications to operate as ‘convictions’ would reduce the distinction between Ohio’s criminal and juvenile systems. It would shift the focus of juvenile adjudications toward punishment and away from guidance and rehabilitation,” Hand’s lawyer writes.
State’s Answer
Attorneys from the Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office contend in the brief to the Court that Ohio law under R.C. 2901.08(A) requires prior juvenile delinquency adjudications be treated as convictions when it comes to imposing a sentence for a later offense. Citing two Ohio Supreme Court cases upholding that contention, State v. Bode (2015) and State v. Adkins (2011), they add the only qualification the Court has placed is an assurance the juvenile was represented by counsel. Since Hand was “afforded appropriate due process protections during his juvenile delinquency adjudication,” they write, “the mere absence of the right to trial by jury in juvenile court” doesn’t mean he falls outside the prior conviction exception.
The state’s attorneys list a number of federal and state court cases in favor of using a juvenile adjudication for sentencing enhancement within the Apprendi exception, including the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals based in Cincinnati (U.S. v. Crowell, 2007). The Ohio Supreme Court’s State v. D.H. decision in 2009 is also noted for recognizing a trial by jury isn’t a constitutional requirement in juvenile delinquency cases.
An amicus curiae brief supporting the Montgomery County prosecutor’s position has been submitted by the Ohio Attorney General’s Office.
- Stephanie Beougher
Docket entries, memoranda, briefs (including amicus briefs), and other information about this case may be accessed through the case docket.
Contacts
Representing Adrian L. Hand Jr.: Stephen A. Goldmeier, Ohio Public Defender’s Office, 614.466.5394
Representing the State of Ohio: Andrew T. French, Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office, 937.225.4117
Attorney Discipline
Cincinnati Bar Association v. Robert Hoskins, Case no. 2015-1003
Hamilton County
The Board of Professional Conduct recommends that the Ohio Supreme Court indefinitely suspend Cincinnati attorney Robert H. Hoskins for violating several professional conduct rules. The board’s disciplinary panel held hearings about seven alleged instances of misconduct.
The Cincinnati Bar Association filed its initial complaint against Hoskins in February 2014. It found that Hoskins failed to appear at a bankruptcy hearing and didn’t show cause to why he missed his client’s hearing. In another case, the bar association determined that Hoskins shared legal fees with Citizens Disability, a non-attorney, an activity that is prohibited in Ohio except in certain circumstances. His client’s petitions were dismissed because of multiple errors in this case.
The disciplinary board heard complaints from other clients of Hoskins including that he failed to provide documents to an insurance company for a client who was involved in an car accident and he used his personal bank account to reimburse a couple’s retainer after he didn’t complete work for them. The board also found that Hoskins hadn’t put the retainer in an Interest on Lawyers Trust Account. Several other clients complained about Hoskins during his disciplinary hearings.
The board stated that because Hoskins failed to fully cooperate with its investigation and due to prior misconduct in Kentucky, which led to a second disciplinary complaint filed against him and the Ohio Supreme Court giving him a 60-day suspension, he should be indefinitely suspended in the Buckeye state.
Attorney’s Objections
Hoskins, who is representing himself, states he made mistakes but none with malicious intent. In the bankruptcy case, Hoskins argues that “it was imprudent of him to agree to file a Chapter 11 for [his client] given his inexperience with Chapter 11 cases. Respondent further erred in allowing a frantic client to sway him to file a Chapter 13 before he was able to confirm that the client complied with the debt threshold of same.”
In the case involving Citizens Disability, Hoskins states the Social Security disability advocate group was owned by an attorney who retains attorneys to “help collect and present client’s medical records and disability claims to each Administrative Law Judge.” Hoskins argues that he didn’t violate any professional conduct rules because his sole contacts with the company were lawyers.
He’s asking the court for either a 12-month stayed suspension or to be placed on a probationary period and make monthly reports to an Ohio judge or attorney about his work with future clients.
Response from Bar Association
In response to Hoskins’ objections, the bar association determined that, throughout the disciplinary process, Hoskins committed multiple counts of misconduct, lacked cooperation in the investigative process, and refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing. It believes Hoskins’ clients had valid complaints. The bar association agrees with the board’s recommendation to indefinitely suspend Hoskins with conditions for his reinstatement.
- Jenna Gant
Docket entries, memoranda, briefs (including amicus briefs), and other information about this case may be accessed through the case docket.
Contacts
Representing the Cincinnati Bar Association: Edwin W. Patterson III, 513.699.1403
Robert Hansford Hoskins, pro se: 513.379.6450
These informal previews are prepared by the Supreme Court's Office of Public Information to provide the news media and other interested persons with a brief overview of the legal issues and arguments advanced by the parties in upcoming cases scheduled for oral argument. The previews are not part of the case record, and are not considered by the Court during its deliberations.
Parties interested in receiving additional information are encouraged to review the case file available in the Supreme Court Clerk's Office (614.387.9530), or to contact counsel of record.