ILNews

Defendants can speak during allocution before sentencing

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Criminal defendants who plead guilty have the right to make statements in allocution prior to sentencing, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled.

The unanimous opinion authored by Justice Robert D. Rucker came late Wednesday in Nicholas Biddinger v. State of Indiana, No. 49S05-0608-CR-305.

Biddinger was arrested and charged with various felonies, including murder, in 2004; he pleaded guilty to aggravated battery during the trial in October that year. The agreement provided that parties could argue positions on sentencing, but the executed range could be 10 to 20 years.

At his sentencing hearing, Biddinger's counsel answered "no" when asked about mitigating evidence, but he later said his client wanted to make a statement. The trial court determined that he had no right to allocution where he'd pled guilty. The court allowed a four-page written statement to be introduced as evidence and then allowed Biddinger to give an oral statement expressing his remorse.

Then-Marion Superior Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson sentenced him to 12 years in prison with two years suspended to probation for a total of 10 years executed. Biddinger appealed on grounds that the court erred in refusing to permit him to make a statement in allocution. The Court of Appeals addressed that issue and ruled that even if the trial court had erred, it was harmless because the full written statement had been introduced and no additional information would have affected the sentence. However, the appellate judges didn't address the case authority on the allocution right being good law, and the Supreme Court granted transfer to address that question of whether it's allowed.

"The answer is yes," Justice Rucker wrote. "A defendant who pleads guilty has a right to make a statement in allocution upon request prior to sentencing. In this case the trial court erred by not allowing Biddinger to make a statement in allocution. But the error was harmless. Further, Biddinger has not demonstrated that his 10-year executed sentence to be served in the Department of Correction requires revision. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court."
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT