Washington v. Recuenco

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.

Washington v. Recuenco
Supreme Court of the United States
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
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy · David Souter Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
Majority	Thomas, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, and Alito
Concurrence	Kennedy
Dissent	Stevens
Dissent	Ginsburg, joined by Stevens

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]