State v. Meggyesy

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding no invited error where the defendant did not invite the particular error he raised on appeal
• applying the six-step analysis set forth in State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54, 720 P.2d 808 (1986)
• State’s charge that defendant was armed with a “deadly weapon” was sufficient to authorize firearm enhancement at sentencing
• “if the deadly weapon finding is a sentencing factor, the sentencing court may make the required [firearm] finding”
• invoking RAP 1. 2( c) and considering the assigned error in a consolidated appeal where one appellant challenged the instruction at trial and the other did not
• “[T]here is nothing in the statutes requiring a specific finding regarding a firearm. . . . [0]nce a finding regarding a deadly weapon is made, it is up to the sentencing court to determine the appropriate enhancement.” (citing State v. Thorne, 129 Wn.2d 736, 921 P.2d 514 (1996))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).