Court of Appeals of Washington· 4/27/1998

State v. Meggyesy

Citations

958 P.2d 319
90 Wash. App. 693

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).

Judges: Cox

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

32 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named State v. Meggyesy

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

State v. Meggyesy
Court of Appeals of Washington· 2002-03-25

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.