From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Doyle

Supreme Court of Colorado. En Banc
Jun 20, 1977
193 Colo. 332 (Colo. 1977)

Opinion

No. C-1061

Decided June 20, 1977.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the superior court to review an order of dismissal by that court in a criminal appeal from the county court involving failure of county court to afford defendant an opportunity to make a statement in his own behalf (allocution) as required by Crim. P. 32(b)(1), after he had been convicted of careless driving and driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and sentenced to county jail.

Reversed

1. CRIMINAL PROCEDUREAllocution — Right — Denial — Lack of Effect — Determination of Guilt. Although Crim. P. 32(b)(1) gives defendant the right of allocution to speak in mitigation of punishment before sentencing, nevertheless, denial of the right of allocution has no effect on the validity of the jury's determination of guilt.

2. Allocution — Denial — Relief — Resentencing. Defendant's only relief from a denial of the right of allocution is resentencing after being afforded his right to allocution.

Certiorari to the Superior Court of the City and County of Denver, Honorable Charles E. Bennett, Judge.

Dale Tooley, District Attorney, Thomas P. Casey, Chief Appellate Deputy, for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.


We granted a petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of the City and County of Denver to review an order of that court in a criminal appeal from the county court. We find that the superior court acted improperly and reverse.

The defendant was found guilty on December 12, 1974, by a Denver county court jury of careless driving and driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The trial court sentenced him to the county jail. However, it failed to afford the defendant an opportunity to make a statement in his own behalf (allocution) as required by Crim. P. 32(b)(1). The defendant appealed to the Denver Superior Court, alleging as his sole ground for error the trial court's failure to comply with Crim. P. 32(b)(1) and requesting only that the trial court's sentence be vacated.

Crim. P. 32(b)(1) states in pertinent part: "Before imposing sentence, the court shall afford the defendant an opportunity to make a statement in his own behalf, and to present any information in mitigation of punishment."

On February 17, 1976, the Denver Superior Court, consonant with the defendant's request, entered a judgment remanding the case to the trial court with instructions to vacate the sentence for its failure to comply with Crim. P. 32(b)(1). On March 12, 1976, in a so-called "Addendum to Judgment," the superior court, sua sponte, entered an order directing the trial court to vacate the sentence and dismiss the charges against the defendant.

It is inexplicable why or how the superior court, after having entered a proper order, would enter the subsequent order sua sponte.

The People filed a timely petition for modification of judgment or, alternatively, a petition for rehearing, requesting the superior court to vacate that part of the addendum which ordered the dismissal and to remand the case to the trial court for resentencing. On September 15, 1976, pursuant to C.A.R. 49 and section 16-12-102, C.R.S. 1973, the People filed a petition for a writ of certiorari.

[1,2] Crim. P. 32(b)(1) gives the defendant the right of allocution to speak in mitigation of punishment before sentencing. Denial of this right has no effect on the validity of the jury's determination of guilt. The defendant's relief from a denial of this right is resentencing after being afforded his right to allocution. Roddy v. United States, 296 F.2d 9 (10th Cir. 1961); United States v. Miller, 293 F.2d 697, 699 (2d Cir. 1961).

In People v. Emig, 177 Colo. 174, 493 P.2d 368 (1972), the trial court had amended the defendant's sentence without notice to him and without his attorney's presence. We remanded with instructions to the trial court to resentence in compliance with Crim. P. 32(b)(1). See also, Mayfield v. United States, 504 F.2d 888 (10th Cir. 1974); Doe v. People, 160 Colo. 215, 416 P.2d 376 (1966); Guerin v. Fullerton, 154 Colo. 142, 389 P.2d 84 (1964); People v. Sandoval, 36 Colo. App. 403, 541 P.2d 105 (1975).

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the superior court and return the case to it with directions to remand to the trial court to reinstate the judgment of conviction and to resentence the defendant in compliance with Crim. P. 32(b)(1).

MR. JUSTICE HODGES does not participate.


Summaries of

People v. Doyle

Supreme Court of Colorado. En Banc
Jun 20, 1977
193 Colo. 332 (Colo. 1977)
Case details for

People v. Doyle

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of Colorado v. Robert V. Doyle

Court:Supreme Court of Colorado. En Banc

Date published: Jun 20, 1977

Citations

193 Colo. 332 (Colo. 1977)
565 P.2d 944

Citing Cases

People v. Garcia

The rule gives a defendant "the right of allocution to speak in mitigation of punishment before sentencing."…

People v. Renfrow

" People v. Emig, 177 Colo. 174, 493 P.2d 368 (1972). Accord, People v. Doyle, 193 Colo. 332, 565 P.2d 944…