Opinion ID: 2546552
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was Hughes Denied His Right of Allocution?

Text: ¶ 67 Hughes also asks this court to vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing because he was denied his right of allocution. The record reflects that the trial court failed to ask Hughes if he wished to speak. Failure by the trial court to solicit a defendant's statement in allocution constitutes legal error. See In re Pers. Restraint of Echeverria, 141 Wash.2d 323, 336, 6 P.3d 573 (2000). However, Hughes failed to object at trial and raises this issue for the first time on appeal. [17] Further, he has not shown that he was prejudiced by the error. According to RAP 2.5(a)(3), if the trial court's failure to request a defendant's statement is not a manifest error affecting a constitutional right we need not consider it for the first time on appeal here. ¶ 68 Hughes appears to assert that the right to allocution is a constitutional right that cannot be denied. This court has held to the contrary: a defendant's right of allocution is derived from state statutes. Its legal provenance under state law is not constitutional in nature. Echeverria, 141 Wash.2d at 335, 6 P.3d 573 (explaining that State v. Happy, 94 Wash.2d 791, 620 P.2d 97 (1980) was decided on a statutory, not constitutional, basis). Because the right at issue is statutorily based and is not a constitutional right, and because Hughes failed to raise this objection at trial, this court does not have to address his allocution claim on review. See RAP 2.5(a). We do not vacate his sentence for violation of the right to allocution.