State Of Washington, V Isabella Marie Lynn Brannan, 75646-0

Isabella Brannan and her father left a Walmart with a shopping cart of unpaid groceries; Brannan was charged in juvenile court with third-degree theft.
Bench trial resulted in a finding of guilt; Brannan did not testify.
The court immediately proceeded to disposition; the State recommended 6 months probation and 45 hours community service; probation recommended 6 months supervision and 40 hours.
Defense asked for a deferred disposition or, alternatively, 6 months probation and no more than 15 community service hours, noting time already served and improved family circumstances.
The judge asked, "Do you have anything you wish to say?" (addressing "you"); Brannan remained silent and her attorney responded instead.
The court imposed 6 months probation, 40 hours community service, and 13 hours credit for time served. Brannan appealed claiming denial of allocution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brannan was denied her statutory right to allocute before disposition	Brannan: court imposed sentence without personally hearing from her or giving her an opportunity to speak, requiring resentencing before a different judge	State/Court: the judge expressly opened disposition, heard parties in order, then directly asked the respondent ("you") if she wished to speak; counsel spoke for her and no objection was made	Court held Brannan was given an opportunity to allocute; silence plus counsel's mitigation amounted to allocution; no objection was made, so claim waived; affirmed

State v. Canfield, 154 Wn.2d 698 (2005) (allocution is statutory and rooted in common law)
State v. Hatchie, 161 Wn.2d 390 (2007) (failure to solicit allocution is legal error; defendant must object to preserve error)
State v. Hughes, 154 Wn.2d 118 (2005) (courts should directly address defendants during sentencing)
In re Pers. Restraint of Echeverria, 141 Wn.2d 323 (2000) (courts should scrupulously follow allocution requirements)
State v. Aguilar-Rivera, 83 Wn. App. 199 (1996) (allocution offered after sentencing is ineffective; may require resentencing)
State v. Crider, 78 Wn. App. 849 (1995) (once sentence announced, defendant is disadvantaged; resentencing before a new judge may be required)
Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424 (1962) (allocution violation is not a jurisdictional or constitutional error)