In re Pers. Restraint of Eastmond (Dissent)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In re PRP of Eastmond (James) No. 81939-4 C. JOHNSON, J. (dissenting) ¢The majority concludes correctly that it was constitutional error for the sentencing court to impose a firearm sentence enhancement when the jury did not determine that the defendant was armed with a firearm. It then concludes, incredibly, that the defendant was not prejudiced by the unconstitutional imposition of 120 additional months of imprisonment for the firearm enhancements. The defendant in this case was sentenced for something the jury did not convict him of. If being sentenced and serving time for something the jury did not find does not amount to actual prejudice, it is hard to imagine what would. In re PRP of Eastmond (James), No. 81939-4 AUTHOR: Justice Charles W. Johnson WE CONCUR: Gerry L. Alexander, Justice Pro Tem. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.