Court Opinion

ID: 9706909
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:55:04.030396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:25.883109
License: Public Domain

MYERS, Associate Judge
(dissenting):
I find no basis in the record for the conclusion of my associates that counsel for appellant was not given the opportunity to speak on behalf of his client prior to imposition of sentence. Concededly, if defense counsel asks the court for permission to make a statement, his request should not be arbitrarily rejected; but the burden is on counsel to bring to the court’s attention that he wishes to address the court to present facts pertinent to sentencing. In the instant case, experienced and competent counsel, who had represented appellant at all stages of the proceedings, did not in any way indicate that he desired to make a statement prior to the imposition of sentence at the conclusion of the trial. This may have been the result of a calculated decision not to do so, or because there were no mitigating circumstances to bring to the attention of the court, or because of an oversight. As I read the majority opinion, it stands for the proposition that if defense counsel— *445for whatever reason — does not make a statement prior to imposition of sentence, an appeal lies and the sentence, although within the statutory limits, must be reversed and the case remanded for resentencing in order that counsel may speak.
In my judgment, it is not without significance that after sentencing defense counsel at no time made an effort to bring to the court’s attention, by motion or otherwise, facts justifying reduction of sentence.1 My associates discount this on the ground that the burden on counsel after imposition of sentence is much heavier than before. That a burden may be heavier is no excuse for inaction. But even if there be such a burden, granting appellant’s attorney another opportunity to speak for his client does not lessen that burden on remand.
Whether appellant was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to speak turns, in my judgment, on whether counsel requested and was arbitrarily denied the right to address the court in mitigation of punishment. Absent such a showing, I cannot agree that the case should be remanded for resentencing after counsel has had an opportunity to present extenuating circumstances. I would affirm both the conviction and the sentence as valid.2

. In argument before us on appeal, appellant’s attorney stated he elected not to address the trial court after sentencing to urge mitigation of punishment because, in his judgment, the “proper atmosphere” was not present.

. In the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions, a presentence investigation, as requested by appellant’s counsel, is, under General Sessions Criminal Rule 20 (a), merely discretionary with the court. Appellant has shown no abuse by the trial judge in dispensing with the pre-sentence report here.