COURT: JUVENILE RECORDS NOT FACTOR IN SENTENCING

An adult criminal defendant can't be charged as a habitual offender,
facing enhanced penalties, based on a juvenile record, the Arkansas
Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The high court, in a 7-0 ruling, ordered that a Van Buren County man
convicted of drug-related crimes be resentenced because Circuit Judge
Karen Baker "prejudiced" the defendant by "admitting the prior
juvenile delinquency adjudication in the sentencing phase of the trial
to trigger the habitual offender law."

At a Feb. 29, 1999, bench trial in front of Baker, Joshua Lee Vanesch
was convicted of possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine,
possession of drug paraphernalia and possession with intent to deliver
marijuana, all felonies.

The charges stemmed from a Jan. 19, 1998, traffic stop in which Van
Buren County sheriff's deputies discovered a black bag in Vanesch's
vehicle. The bag contained marijuana, methamphetamine and drug
paraphernalia.

During trial, the felony information against Vanesch was amended to
charge Vanesch as a habitual offender for having committed more than
one but fewer than four felonies on different occasions.

The prosecutor based the amendment on a felony charge of theft by
receiving that Vanesch pleaded guilty to eight days after his arrest
on the drug charges and a juvenile delinquency adjudication for
another drug possession charge.

Baker, upon finding Vanesch guilty of all three charges, sentenced
Vanesch as a habitual offender to 12 years in prison for possession of
methamphetamine with intent to deliver, 10 years for possession of
marijuana with intent to deliver and six years for drug paraphernalia
possession. Baker ordered that the sentences be served
concurrently.

The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on May 17, 2000.
However, the Appeals Court found that the trial court erred by
allowing Vanesch's juvenile record in the sentencing phase of the
trial to add to his prison sentence under the habitual offender law,
because a juvenile adjudication is not a felony conviction.

However, the Appeals Court said Vanesch did not prove the error hurt
his case because he could not show that Baker increased his sentence.
Vanesch's sentence did not exceed the maximum sentence for
non-habitual convictions, the appeals court noted.

The state, arguing that the Appeals Court erred by asserting that a
juvenile record could not be used to increase a sentence, petitioned
the Supreme Court to review the decision.

Associate Justice Jim Hannah, writing for the high court, said the
court has held previously that a finding of juvenile delinquency is
not considered a "conviction." Further, he said, the General Assembly
has recognized that a juvenile delinquency adjudication is different
from a conviction.

And even though Vanesch's sentence did not exceed the maximum sentence
for non-habitual offenders, had Vanesch not been found to be a
habitual offender, lesser sentences, including probation, would have
been available, Hannah said.

So while the Supreme Court "can only speculate" on what impact the
inadmissible juvenile record played in sentencing, the court does know
that Baker departed from the sentencing guidelines and sentenced
Vanesch as a habitual offender, Hannah added.