In re the Personal Restraint of Jackson, 283 P.3d 1089

Rivera and Jackson were convicted and sentenced with firearm/deadly weapon enhancements; the enhancements were 60 months each.
Information in Rivera’s case stated Rivera was armed with a deadly weapon and identified the weapon as a handgun under RCW 9.94A.125 and 9.94A.310(3)(a).
Jackson’s information alleged armed-with-a-deadly-weapon and invoked firearm enhancements under RCW 9.94A.310 and 9.94A.370.
Both cases yielded jury special verdicts finding the defendants were armed with a deadly weapon, supporting the assigned enhancements.
Rivera’s and Jackson’s judgments became final in 2002; Rivera moved in 2008 to vacate the firearm sentence enhancement, Jackson filed a PRP in 2008, and the cases were consolidated in 2011.
The Court addressed whether the retroactivity rules from Blakely, Recuenco I, and Recuenco III apply to these prefinal convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are Recuenco I/III retroactive for retroactive relief?	Rivera/Jackson contend retroactivity applies.	State argues not retroactive; rules apply on collateral review only prospectively.	No retroactivity for Recuenco I/III.
Is Blakely retroactive for these final convictions?	Blakely was new rule affecting sentencing; should apply retroactively.	Blakely not retroactive on collateral review.	Blakely not retroactive; relief denied.
Did the information and jury findings adequately authorize firearm enhancements under pre-Recuenco law?	Special verdicts of deadly weapon sufficed to authorize enhancements.	Enhanced protections required explicit firearm findings or more precise charging.	Under pre-Recuenco law, the deadly weapon findings plus charging sufficed; no retroactive relief.

State v. Blakely, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (jury determination required for sentence enhancements)
State v. Evans, 154 Wn.2d 438 (2005) (retroactivity of Blakely on collateral review)
State v. Recuenco, 154 Wn.2d 156 (2005) (firearm enhancement based on deadly weapon without explicit firearm finding; harmless error analysis later)
State v. Recuenco, 163 Wn.2d 428 (2008) (structural error not subject to harmless error analysis; need explicit charging for firearm enhancement)
State v. Cruze, 169 Wn.2d 422 (2010) (context for notice and use of deadly weapon findings)
State v. Meggyesy, 90 Wn. App. 693 (1998) (discusses charging and firearm enhancement adequacy)
State v. Gore, 143 Wn.2d 288 (2001) (foundational principles on enhancements and jury findings)
State v. Williams-Walker, 167 Wn.2d 889 (2010) (jury findings and authorization of sentence enhancements)