Washington v. Arturo R. Recuenco
547 U.S. ___ (2006) (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A Sixth Amendment violation under Blakely v. Washington, which occurs when a judge rather than a jury finds a sentencing factor that increases a defendant's sentence beyond the statutory maximum authorized by the jury's verdict, is not a structural error and is subject to harmless-error analysis.
Facts:
- On September 18, 1999, Arturo Recuenco and his wife, Amy Recuenco, were involved in a fight.
- During the altercation, Recuenco screamed at his wife and smashed their stove.
- Recuenco then threatened his wife with a gun.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Washington charged Arturo Recuenco in trial court with second-degree assault 'with a deadly weapon, to-wit: a handgun.'
- The jury found Recuenco guilty of assault and, on a special verdict form, found that he was 'armed with a deadly weapon.'
- At sentencing, the trial judge, rather than the jury, found that the weapon was a 'firearm' and imposed a 3-year mandatory sentence enhancement.
- Recuenco appealed to the Supreme Court of Washington.
- Before the Washington Supreme Court, the State conceded that the trial judge's factual finding violated the Sixth Amendment under Blakely v. Washington.
- The Supreme Court of Washington held that a Blakely error is 'structural' and can never be harmless, vacating Recuenco's sentence and remanding for resentencing based only on the jury's 'deadly weapon' finding.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Washington Supreme Court's conclusion that Blakely errors are structural.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a Sixth Amendment violation under Blakely v. Washington, where a judge imposes a sentence enhancement based on a fact not found by the jury, a structural error requiring automatic reversal?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
No. A Sixth Amendment sentencing error of this nature is not a structural error requiring automatic reversal, but is instead a trial error subject to harmless-error analysis. This case is indistinguishable from Neder v. United States, where the Court held that a trial court's failure to submit an element of an offense to the jury is subject to harmless-error review. Based on the Court's reasoning in Apprendi v. New Jersey, sentencing factors that increase a penalty are the functional equivalent of elements of a greater offense. Therefore, the failure to submit a sentencing factor to the jury is not a structural error because it does not necessarily render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
No. While the author dissented in the prior cases of Apprendi and Blakely that established the underlying rule, those cases are now binding precedent. On the premise that those holdings are correct, the Court's application of harmless-error analysis in this case is the correct and logical extension of that precedent.
Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg
Yes. The trial court's error should not be subject to harmless-error analysis because this case is distinct from Neder. Here, the jury returned a complete and error-free verdict on the specific crime charged: assault with a 'deadly weapon.' The prosecutor then improperly sought, and the judge improperly imposed, a sentence for a different, greater offense that was never charged or submitted to the jury: assault with a 'firearm.' Applying harmless-error analysis allows a court to uphold a conviction for an uncharged offense, dislodging an error-free jury determination and diminishing the jury's fundamental role in the justice system.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the remedial landscape for Sixth Amendment violations under the Apprendi/Blakely line of cases. By classifying such errors as trial errors rather than structural errors, the Court prevents the automatic reversal of sentences where a judge, not a jury, finds a sentencing-enhancing fact. This ruling strengthens the finality of convictions by allowing appellate courts to affirm sentences if they can conclude the error was 'harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.' Consequently, it places a higher burden on defendants to show not only that an error occurred, but also that it was prejudicial, thereby limiting a key avenue for post-conviction relief.
Unlock the full brief for Washington v. Arturo R. Recuenco