Washington v. Recuenco
Washington v. Recuenco | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||
Argued April 17, 2006 Decided June 26, 2006 | |||||||
Full case name | Washington v. Recuenco | ||||||
Citations | |||||||
Holding | |||||||
Reversed and remanded | |||||||
Court membership | |||||||
| |||||||
Case opinions | |||||||
Majority | Thomas, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, and Alito | ||||||
Concurrence | Kennedy | ||||||
Dissent | Stevens | ||||||
Dissent | Ginsburg, joined by Stevens |
Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (2006), is the United States Supreme Court case of Recuenco, a man who was convicted of second-degree assault after he threatened his wife with a handgun, and subsequently sentenced by the Washington Supreme Court based not only on the conviction, but based on Recuenco's use of a handgun, charged as assault with a deadly weapon. His sentencing included a three-year enhancement, a standard based on his being armed with a firearm, which is greater than the one-year enhancement he would have received for assault with a deadly weapon. As the jury in the case had not found that Recuenco was armed with a firearm, he argued that the sentencing enhancement violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. At the Supreme Court, the State conceded that a Blakely error had occurred, but argued that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court held in a 7-2 opinion that a Blakely error could be considered harmless.