 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Horn6/7/2005
st-conviction relief. Accordingly, this claim is meritless.
Allocution
{ } As her fourth and final assignment of error, Horn asserts:
{ } "The court erred in neglecting and refusing to properly ask the defendant if she had anything to say as to why sentence should not be placed upon her as required by Criminal Rule 32."
{ } Horn maintains that she was denied her right to allocution as required under Crim.R. 32(A)(1). By rule, prior to sentencing an offender the trial court must, " fford counsel an opportunity to speak on behalf of the defendant and address the defendant personally and ask if he or she wishes to make a statement in his or her own behalf or present any information in mitigation of punishment."
{ } Both Horn and her counsel were addressed personally by the court and given the opportunity to speak pursuant to Crim.R. 32(A)(1). Although Horn opted not to speak, her counsel presented a statement on her behalf. It appears from the record the trial court complied with Crim.R. 32(A)(1) and Horn's right of allocution was not violated. This assignment of error is also meritless.
{ } For all the foregoing reasons, Horn's assignments of error are meritless and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Vukovich, J., concurs.
Waite, J., concurs.
|