State v. Graziano, 333 P.3d 366

Graziano pled guilty on August 23, 2011 to two third-degree counts of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor.
AP&P prepared a presentence report recommending prison; a psychosexual evaluation was also prepared.
At sentencing the court reviewed both reports; the State agreed with the prison recommendation.
Defense counsel argued for departure based on a psychologist’s letter indicating progress in treatment, seeking to avoid prison.
The court imposed concurrent zero-to-five-year prison terms; Graziano did not speak at sentencing.
On appeal Graziano contends the trial court violated allocution rights and due process; he also argues ineffective assistance of counsel and illegal-sentence arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the court violate allocution rights by not allowing personal mitigation?	Graziano	Graziano	No; allocution was provided and the court fulfilled its duty.
Was there plain error in sentencing for lack of allocution?	Graziano	Graziano	Plain error not established; no error occurred below.
Did defense counsel’s performance amount to ineffective assistance for not requesting personal allocution?	Graziano	Graziano	No; counsel’s performance was not deficient given the court’s invitation and defense counsel’s mitigation presentation.
Does Rule 22(e) challenge fail because sentence was not illegal or improper due to allocution?	Graziano	Graziano	Fail; allocution was provided, so no illegal sentence.

State v. Candland, 309 P.3d 230 (Utah 2013) (plain-error framework for sentencing allocution issues)
State v. Anderson, 929 P.2d 1107 (Utah 1996) (allocution is an inseparable part of presence at trial)
State v. Wanosik, 79 P.3d 937 (Utah 2003) (shall affirmatively provide opportunity to allocute)
State v. Rodrigues, 218 P.3d 610 (Utah 2009) (allocution satisfaction includes defendant and counsel)
State v. Udy, 286 P.3d 345 (Utah App. 2012) (no allocution when court refused mitigation statements)