Opinion ID: 779797
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: 10 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3)(C) requires that the district court address the defendant personally and determine whether the defendant wishes to make a statement and to present any information in mitigation of the sentence prior to imposing sentence — a procedure also known as allocution. Ramon contends that he was denied his right of allocution under Rule 32(c)(3)(C) because the court did not expressly give him the opportunity to make a mitigating statement prior to imposition of sentence. The question here is whether the court's statement, anything else that you-all want to talk about?, satisfies Rule 32(c)(3)(C). We find that it does not. 11 Generally, a defendant must expressly and unequivocally be given an opportunity to personally speak on his own behalf before a sentence is imposed. See, e.g., Myers, 150 F.3d at 462; United States v. Anderson, 987 F.2d 251, 261 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Dominguez-Hernandez, 934 F.2d 598, 599 (5th Cir.1991). Trial judges before sentencing should, as a matter of good judicial administration, unambiguously address themselves to the defendant. Hereafter trial judges should leave no room for doubt that the defendant has been issued a personal invitation to speak prior to sentencing. Cuozzo v. United States, 325 F.2d 274, 275 (5th Cir. 1963) (quoting Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301, 305, 81 S.Ct. 653, 5 L.Ed.2d 670 (1961)). 12 Failure to give a defendant the right of allocution is grounds for remand. [A]llocution continues to play a salient role in criminal cases. Thus, while we do not attach talismanic significance to any particular string of words, a defendant must at least be accorded the functional equivalent of the right. United States v. De Alba Pagan, 33 F.3d 125, 129 (1st Cir.1994). That right must be communicated unequivocally, see, e.g., United States v. Echegollen-Barrueta, 195 F.3d 786, 790 (5th Cir.1999); Myers, 150 F.3d at 461, even at probation revocation hearings. See, e.g., United States v. Turner, 741 F.2d 696, 699 (5th Cir.1984) (vacating sentence imposed following revocation and remanding for resentencing on the ground that the defendants had been denied the right of allocution); United States v. Eads, 480 F.2d 131, 132 (5th Cir.1973) (same). 13 We find that the district court's statement, anything else that you all want to talk about?, did not unambiguously provide defendant the right of allocution here. [T]he district court's failure to comply with Rule 32(c)(3)(C) requires automatic reversal, United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 981 (5th Cir.2000), and remand for resentencing. Myers, 150 F.3d at 463; Anderson, 987 F.2d at 261. This is true even if there was no objection in the district court and even if the defendant has not stated that he wishes to allocute. See Dominguez-Hernandez, 934 F.2d at 599. 14 Defendant did not waive his right of allocution at sentencing by remaining silent for the purposes of revocation. While a district court has not deprived a defendant of his right to allocute when it keeps him from incriminating himself at the sentencing by interrupting an inculpatory statement, United States v. De La Paz, 698 F.2d 695, 697 (5th Cir.1983), that is not the case here. The record suggests that Ramon elected to remain silent expressly for the purposes of revocation, not sentencing. [O]nly at the final sentencing can the defendant respond to a definitive decision of the judge. United States v. Moree, 928 F.2d 654, 656 (5th Cir.1991) (quoting United States v. Behrens, 375 U.S. 162, 168, 84 S.Ct. 295, 11 L.Ed.2d 224 (1963) (Harlan J., concurring)). The court's omission in this regard was not harmless error. Myers, 150 F.3d at 463 ([R]emand is necessary even when the judge's comments, at the sentencing hearing or elsewhere, indicate that the judge would remain unmoved in the face of anything the defendant has to say.) (emphasis in original).