Apprendi requirement that all facts used to enhance a sentence over the statutory maximum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348 [147 L.Ed.2d 435]. The Third, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held that they are. * * * Our analysis of Apprendi leads us to conclude that the Third, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits are right”); State v. McFee, 721 N.W.2d 607, 619 (Minn.2006) (“We hold that, in calculating a defendant’s criminal history score, a defendant does not have a Sixth Amendment right to a jury determination of the fact of a prior juvenile adjudication”); State v. Weber, 159 Wash.2d 252, 149 P.3d 646, ¶ 21 (2006) (“we hold that juvenile adjudications are convictions for the purposes of Apprendi’s S.Ct. 1779, 44 L.Ed.2d 346 [1975] (<HOLDING>); In re Melvin J. (2000), 81 Cal.App.4th 742,
holding that a proceeding to forfeit imported merchandise not included in a declaration was civil not criminal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause holding that civil forfeitures are neither punishment nor criminal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court holding the double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that a delinquency proceeding places a juvenile in jeopardy for purposes of the double jeopardy clause