maximum punishment is established by statutes found in the criminal code, not by a juvenile division in a certification proceeding. Andrews, 329 S.W.3d at 372-73. The court concluded that the defendant’s certification did not expose him to any greater punishment than authorized by the jury’s verdict as required to violate Apprendi. This is because the judgment that certified [the juvenile] to be tried as an adult did not impose any sentence on him whatsoever. Instead, it only determined that his case would be heard in a circuit court of general jurisdiction rather than the juvenile division of the circuit court — a decision to which other courts have determined Apprendi does not apply. Andrews, 329 S.W.3d at 375-76 (citation omitted) (citing Gonzales v. Tafoya, 515 F.3d (2002) (<HOLDING>); Caldwell v. Commonwealth, 133 S.W.3d 445, 453
holding that apprendi does not apply to juvenile waiver hearings because the applicable statute does not involve guilt or innocence but involves the determination of which system will be appropriate for a juvenile offender holding that juvenile adjudications may not be used for impeachment purposes because the disposition of a juvenile does not constitute a criminal conviction holding that the apprendi rule was not implicated because a juvenile transfer proceeding does not involve sentencing or a determination of guilt or innocence holding that statute allowing for transfer of juvenile to adult criminal court does not implicate apprendi because the judges transfer determination does not subject the juvenile to enhanced punishment it subjects the juvenile to the adult criminal justice system holding that although the juvenile restitution statute does not expressly require the juvenile court to determine whether the juvenile has the ability to pay the restitution ordered as a condition of probation the policies underlying the adult restitutions command that a trial court make such an inquiry applies with equal force to juvenile courts