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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT