Citation network
Washington Vs. Recuenco
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 26, 2006
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Syllabus October Term, 2005 Washington V. RecuencoSearch
-
s own factual findings that respondent was armed with a firearm. This Court then decided Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
id., at 490, and Blakely v. WashingtonSearch
-
which will always invalidate a conviction under Sullivan v. LouisianaSearch
-
be able to demonstrate that the Blakely violation in this particular case was not harmless. See Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
there is a strong presumption that most constitutional errors are subject to harmless-error analysis. E.g., Neder v. UnitedSearch
-
filed a dissenting opinion. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, J., joined. Washington v. RecuencoSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Washington V. RecuencoSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 05-83 Washington, Petitioner V. ArturoSearch
-
s sentence based on its own factual findings, in violation of Blakely v. WashingtonSearch
-
s appeal, we decided Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
Court of Washington to find the Blakely error harmless and, accordingly, to affirm the sentence. In Washington v. HughesSearch
-
Id., at 142, 110 P. 3d 205 (quoting Sullivan v. LouisianaSearch
-
s interpretation of Washington law is correct. See Washington v. PharrSearch
-
Neder v. UnitedSearch
-
States , 527 U. S. 1 , 8 (1999) (quoting Arizona v. FulminanteSearch
-
U. S., at 8 (quoting Rose v. ClarkSearch
-
of mail fraud and wire fraud. Ibid. We determined that the District Court erred because under United States v. GaudinSearch
-
Id ., at 9. See also Schriro v. SummerlinSearch
-
rejecting the claim that Ring v. ArizonaSearch
-
s argument that, as a matter of state law, the Blakely v. WashingtonSearch
-
U. S. 296 (2004), error was not harmless remains open to him on remand. Footnote 2 See Neder v. UnitedSearch
-
States , 527 U. S. 1 , 8 (1999) (citing Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
States , 520 U. S. 461 , 468 (1997), in turn citing Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial as defined by Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
The Supreme Court of Washington reached the contrary conclusion based on language from Sullivan . See Washington v. HughesSearch
-
proposed application of the language from Sullivan compels our rejection of this argument here. Washington v. RecuencoSearch
-
Justice Kennedy, concurring. The opinions for the Court in Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
Jersey, 530 U. S. 466 (2000), Blakely v. WashingtonSearch
-
s analysis is correct. Cf. Ring v. ArizonaSearch
-
s opinion. Washington v. RecuencoSearch
-
Justice Stevens, dissenting. Like Brigham City v. StuartSearch
-
and Kansas v. MarshSearch
-
we even have jurisdiction to decide that question is not entirely clear. But even if our expansionist post- Michigan v. LongSearch
-
chooses, as a matter of state law, to adhere to its view that the proper remedy for Blakely errors, see Blakely v. WashingtonSearch
-
s opinion, which I join. Washington v. RecuencoSearch
-
Ginsburg, J., Dissenting Washington V. RecuencoSearch
-
cf. United States v. MartinSearch
-
United States v. MayburySearch
-
see also Blakely v. WashingtonSearch
-
Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
and Blakely v. WashingtonSearch
-
See Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial