U.S. 551 (2005), it is inappropriate to introduce evidence of juvenile adjudications.
That case addressed the inappropriateness of imposing the death penalty on a
juvenile, however, and does not otherwise affect juvenile proceedings.
In sentencing, the district court did not err in considering King’s juvenile
adjudication under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5). See United States v. Garner, 490 F.3d
739, 743 (9th Cir. 2007). The district court nonetheless procedurally erred in
calculating the Guidelines range. King was charged with both offenses in a single
superseding indictment. The district court separated the two offenses for trial, but
declined to continue sentencing on count 1 until after trial on count 2. At
sentencing on count 2, the court treated King’s conviction on count 1 as a specific
offense characteristic. It therefore erred in not recognizing that the counts involved
substantially the same harm, see U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(c), and should have been
grouped. The district court reasoned that the offense was listed as an excluded
offense under subsection (d). Such offenses, however, may nonetheless be
grouped under subsection (c). See, e.g., § 3D1.2(d) (“Exclusion of an offense from
grouping under this subsection does not necessarily preclude grouping under
another subsection.”); United States v. Tank, 200 F.3d 627, 632–33 (9th Cir. 2000).
The court imposed two consecutive sentences at the top ends of their respective