Opinion ID: 2543706
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the district court remedied the violation of m.r.'s right to be heard

Text: ¶ 38 Based on the prosecutor's failure to relay M.R.'s request to be heard, the district court initially deprived M.R. of his right to speak at the change of plea hearing. At defendant's sentencing hearing, however, the court learned of M.R.'s earlier desire to be heard. The court then permitted M.R. and his mother to take the stand and testify regarding the appropriateness of defendant's plea bargain. The court also permitted extensive argument by M.R.'s counsel. Restricted in no respect by the court, all three individuals claimed that the plea bargain should have been rejected. After hearing this testimony and argument, the court informally reopened defendant's change of plea hearing and accepted the testimony that it had just heard from M.R. and his mother. The court then reaffirmed defendant's plea at the Class A level. [12] ¶ 39 By taking these steps, the district court remedied its initial denial of M.R.'s right to be heard. Our conclusion is based on the following rationale. First, we note that the plea was subject to review up until the time of sentencing. See Ostler, 2001 UT 68 at ¶ 10, 31 P.3d 528 (noting that it makes no sense to deprive the district court of the power to review a plea before it enters a judgment of conviction and sentence.). Accordingly, in exercising its power to reopen the plea, the court permitted M.R. to be heard at a time when he could have persuaded the court to reject the proposed plea. Second, the record clearly demonstrates that the court reaffirmed the plea only after having accepted M.R.'s and his mother's testimony, and permitting argument by his counsel. [13] ¶ 40 Thus, although M.R. was entitled to be heard at defendant's change of plea hearing, we conclude that he has enjoyed the fruits of the right he now claims he was denied. Accordingly, we hold that the district court, to its credit, cured the error initially committed at the change of plea hearing and honored M.R.'s right to be heard as soon as it discovered M.R. wished to be heard. [14]