# State v. Hughes

> Washington Supreme Court · April 14, 2005 · 154 Wash. 2d 118

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4713139

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Washington v. Daniel D. Hughes, Appellant The State of Washington v. George Leonard Selvidge, Petitioner The State of Washington v. Michael Ray Anderson
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 14, 2005
- **Citations:** 154 Wash. 2d 118
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sanders
- **Judges:** Alexander, Bridge, Chambers, Fairhurst, Ireland, Johnson, Madsen, Owens, Sanders
- **Cited by:** 291 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Abrogated by Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (2006).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4713139

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an error under Blakely, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, was structural and could never be harmless
- holding that to create a means for the jury, on remand, to decide aggravating sentencing factors "out of whole cloth would be to usurp the power of the legislature”
- holding that a procedure to impanel juries to find aggravating factors would usurp the power of the legislature
- stating that, when “determining] the amount of restitution, the trial court can either rely on a defendant’s acknowledgment or it can determine the amount by a preponderance of evidence”
- observing Blakely’s exception that permits judges to find existence of prior convictions

## Opinion text

¶ 82 (concurring) — Had the defense in Daniel Hughes’ case challenged the credentials of the State’s expert witness at the restitution hearing, cross-examined, or introduced its own evidence on restitution, I think this case might well present a restitution issue worthy of consideration. However, on this record I must concur with the majority’s disposition.
Sanders, J.
Reconsideration denied July 26, 2005.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4713139. Public record. Not legal advice.