Court of Appeals of Washington February 5, 2004, No. 21009-0-III (State v. Gurske)

Schultheis, J.

(dissenting) — Because I disagree with the majority’s opinion that the evidence supports the trial court’s imposition of a deadly weapon enhancement to Samuel Gurske’s sentence, I respectfully dissent.

*67The majority concludes the pistol in Mr. Gurske’s vehicle was “ ‘within arms reach from the driver’s position.’ ” Majority at 64.