Our reading of the record indicates that it was the desire of defendant and his attorney that the trial court consider the comments made in the written statements in lieu of any further comment by defendant. 2d 504, Syl. We consider, after our examination of the record, that defendant invited the trial court to sentence him without formal allocution. His invitation was accepted, and he is not now permitted to complain of the trial court's decision on appeal. Further, even assuming the trial court might have erred in relying on the statements of defendant's attorney, that error can be nothing more than harmless.
Hunt is applicable here.
Defendant made no proffer at any stage in the original proceedings, on remand, or on appeal as to what he would have said had the court asked him if he had any comments he wished to make prior to sentencing. Under those circumstances, if it was error for the trial court to rely on defendant's attorney's statements that defendant did not desire formal allocution, that error was harmless only. Under our decision in State v. Thomas where the only errors asserted on appeal were either invited or harmless, this appeal does not present an issue which we can address. 2d 504, Syl. As we said in Thomas , the Ortiz exceptions do not apply when the appeal can clearly raise no issues which the court can address.