State v. Hurwitz, 500 P.3d 921

Hurwitz pled guilty to seven felonies for a series of 2019 burglaries and thefts causing substantial loss and damage; plea left sentencing to the court.
Sentencing was conducted remotely by videoconference during COVID‑19; Hurwitz participated from a jail room with poor acoustics and somewhat "echoey" audio.
AP&P recommended probation contingent on short jail time and restitution; family and counsel urged leniency; the State sought prison.
The certified transcript of Hurwitz’s allocution was largely marked "(inaudible)," but the parties stipulated to include the raw audio in the appellate record.
The appellate court listened to the recording, concluded Hurwitz’s allocution was largely intelligible, rejected his claims under Utah R. Crim. P. 22(e) and ineffective assistance, and affirmed the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentence may be corrected under Utah R. Crim. P. 22(e) because allocution was denied by unintelligible remote audio	Hurwitz: allocution effectively denied; under rule 22 sentence was imposed in an illegal manner and must be corrected	State: the 2017 version of rule 22(e) is limiting; Hurwitz’s claim does not fall within any enumerated ground and (e)(1)(F) (omitted statutory condition) does not apply to procedural allocution issues	Rejected: current rule 22(e) does not authorize correction here; (e)(1)(F) concerns substantive omissions in the sentence, not procedural defects in allocution
Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the audio quality during allocution	Hurwitz: counsel was deficient for not ensuring his allocution was audible and for not objecting	State: counsel’s performance was reasonable because the court could hear Hurwitz and no timely objection was necessary; no prejudice shown	Rejected: appellate court found the audio intelligible on review; counsel’s decision not to object was reasonable and no Strickland prejudice shown

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective assistance / two‑prong Strickland test)
State v. Kelson, 348 P.3d 373 (allocution is a statutory and constitutional right)
State v. Wilkerson, 478 P.3d 1048 (explains post‑2017 narrowing of rule 22(e))
State v. Udy, 286 P.3d 345 (pre‑2017 rule 22(e) decisions concerning correction for allocution defects)
State v. Kitches, 484 P.3d 415 (preservation and judicial‑economy considerations in reviewing rule 22 claims)