Washington v. Recuenco
|Washington v. Recuenco|
|Argued April 17, 2006
Decided June 26, 2006
|Full case name||Washington v. Recuenco|
|Citations||548 U.S. 212 (more)|
|Reversed and remanded|
|Majority||Thomas, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, and Alito|
|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.
- The Supreme Court, 2005 Term — Leading Cases, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 192 (2006).
|This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.|