Legal Opinion
State v. Borboa
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided December 7, 2004No. 30330-2-IIPublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
102 P.3d 183 (2004)
STATE of Washington, Respondent,
v.
Escolastico Casey BORBOA, Appellant.
No. 30330-2-II.
Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2.
December 7, 2004.
David Schultz, Attorney at Law, Camas, WA, for Appellant.
Scott Douglas Jackson, Attorney at Law, Vancouver, WA, for Respondent.
PUBLISHED IN PART
MORGAN, A.C.J.
The main question in this appeal is whether a sentence imposed under RCW 9.94A.712 is subject to the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial as interpreted in Apprendi v. New Jersey[1] and Blakely v. Washington.[2] Answering yes, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
RCW 9.94A.712…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Duncan v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Williams v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Jones v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- State v. ClarkeWashington Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. BorboaWashington Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. BorboaWashington Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. WomacCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
- State v. MonroeCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.