Agreeing with Division Four of the same court in People v. Bowden, Division 7 here held that a juvenile adjudication may be used as a strike to enhance an adult offender’s sentence notwithstanding the absence of the right to a jury trial in delinquency proceedings. The court found that appellant misapprehends Apprendi and Tighe, which concern the allocation of fact-finding responsibilities between judge and jury, not the nature or scope of sentence enhancement factors. Smith was afforded the right to have a jury determine whether he sustained the prior juvenile adjudications, and the jury found them true, and he admitted the sustained petitions when he testified at trial. He could not then complain that the use of his prior juvenile adjudications violated Apprendi. The “unfairness” of disallowing a jury trial in a juvenile proceeding and then using the resulting wardship as a prior conviction, described by the dissenting justice, needs to be addressed by the Legislature, not the courts.