| Washington v. Recuenco | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 17, 2006 Decided June 26, 2006 | |
| Full case name | Washington v. Arturo R. Recuenco |
| Citations | 548 U.S. 212 (more) 126 S. Ct. 2546; 165 L. Ed. 2d 466; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 5164 |
| Holding | |
| Failure to submit a sentencing factor to the jury is not "structural" error, and therefore does not entitle to reversal of conviction if the error was harmless. | |
| 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.[1]