Court Opinion

ID: 9717468
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:03:58.152492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:53.326180
License: Public Domain

McAULIFFE, Judge,
dissenting.
I agree that the preferred and most frequently followed procedure in sentencing proceedings is to offer the defendant the opportunity for allocution after the prosecutor’s initial presentation. I would be willing to consider amend*389ing Md.Rule 4-342(e) to mandate the preferred procedure. At present, however, the rule requires only that the defendant be offered the opportunity for allocution “before sentence is determined.” Although the majority recognizes that the right of allocution is not of constitutional dimension, and exists only by virtue of Maryland nonconstitutional law currently reflected in Rule 4-342(e), it engrafts onto the rule its perception of what the procedure should be by the unfortunate expedient of inserting a requirement that simply is not present.
The majority explains that allocution is intended, among other things, to give the defendant an opportunity “to refute or explain any information presented to the sentencing judge,” — to “contest any disputed factual basis for the sentence.” If the prosecutor had offered any new facts to the court, I would be inclined to agree that the defendant should be afforded an opportunity to explain or refute that information. Here, the prosecutor did not offer new facts. She simply argued the meaning of the undisputed facts which were known to both parties and to the court, and recommended a specific sentence. The effect of the Court’s opinion today is to hold that the right of allocution carries with it the absolute right to have the final argument. I disagree, and I would affirm the judgment.