Opinion ID: 779290
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Allocution at Sentencing

Text: 117 The district court at sentencing indicated that he was going to sentence Green at the bottom of the guidelines range, which was 151 months. Green's counsel then said that his presentation would be shorter. However, the district court then imposed a 151-month sentence for the drug conviction and a 14-month consecutive sentence for the failure to appear conviction. When Green's counsel attempted to object to the 165-month sentence, the district court declined to entertain his comments. 118 Green argues that the district court misled his counsel at sentencing into shortening his sentencing arguments and denied his counsel a right of allocution. Green also argues that the district court's imposition of a harsher sentence than indicated denied him due process. 119 The government argues that Green's counsel and the district court merely misunderstood one another, that the district court already had in mind the sentence it was going to impose regardless of what Green's counsel said, and in any event, the sentence imposed was within the guidelines range. 120 This court reviews Green's claim de novo. United States v. Wolfe, 71 F.3d 611, 614 (6th Cir.1995).
121 It is clear that Green's counsel had a right to allocute at sentencing. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3) states in part that before imposing sentence, the court must ... afford defendant's counsel an opportunity to speak. 122 Here, Green's counsel began his statement to the court arguing that Green should receive a sentence at the bottom level, or 151-months. The district court replied that not to interfere with your statement, that's what I had in mind. Green's counsel then replied, Judge, I think my presentation will be significantly shorter then. At which point, Green's counsel made a brief statement to the district court, followed by Green's own statement. After the district court imposed the 151-month sentence on the drug charges and the 14-month consecutive sentence on the failure to appear charge, the following exchange took place: 123 Mr. Lichter [Green's counsel]: Judge, I believe at this point the Court would ask me if we have any objections to the manner of sentence or the way it was imposed. And I have to tell the Court that I feel somewhat uncomfortable. I do object because I had — 124 The Court: You object to what? 125 Mr. Lichter: I object to the way the Court imposed the sentence. The way I understood it, the guidelines for both offenses was 151 to 188 months. That's the way it's laid out in the PSI. The guidelines for his drug offense was level 32. It's 120 — 126 The Court: That is at the discretion of the Court, isn't it? 127 Mr. Lichter: Yes sir, it is. But when I asked the Court about it, you told me that you were going to sentence him at the bottom of the guidelines. 128 The Court: Take your appeal if you think the Court doesn't have that authority. You ought to be grateful that the court is letting this defendant off as easy as he can. 129 Mr. Lichter: Judge, this is a man who doesn't deserve what he's getting here today. Judge, the Court — 130 The Court: That's all. That's all. No more.
131 Our review of the record establishes that the district court did not give Green's counsel a right of allocution. After informing Green's counsel that he was going to impose a sentence at the low end of the guidelines, or 151 months, Green's counsel understandably said that his argument would be much shorter. However, the district court imposed a sentence of 165 months, an obvious surprise to Green's counsel who legitimately expected a sentence of 151 months. With considerable candor, the government stated at oral argument in response to a question that it too expected Green to be sentenced to 151 months based on the district court's comments. When Green's counsel attempted to raise an objection to the sentence, the district court essentially stopped Green's counsel from saying anything more and thus denied him the opportunity to allocute on behalf of his client. Accordingly, this case must be remanded for resentencing to afford Green's counsel the right to allocute as required by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.