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) | |||||
| 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.