Opinion ID: 2538538
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: use of juvenile adjudication to increase sentence

Text: Pennington further argues that the court violated his rights by using his juvenile adjudications to increase his sentence. He argues that the Apprendi exception for prior crimes requires a trial by jury to ensure that the defendant's right to due process is not infringed. Because juveniles are not given the right to trial by jury, the use of juvenile adjudications does not fall within the Apprendi exception. Like his argument regarding the use of his criminal history to increase his sentence, this issue is reviewed de novo. State v. Hitt, 273 Kan. 224, 235-36, 42 P.3d 732 (2002), cert. denied 537 U.S. 1104 (2003). This issue has also been resolved against Pennington. In Hitt, this court held that juvenile adjudications enjoy ample procedural safeguards and are encompassed in the Apprendi exception for prior crimes. 273 Kan. at 236. Pennington's claim of error fails.