State v. Kelson, 348 P.3d 373

Kelson was convicted on multiple securities-related charges (several felonies) and appealed; one conviction (pattern of unlawful activity) was previously vacated and other issues were reviewed by the Utah Supreme Court and this court on remand.
On remand the sole issue was whether the trial court violated Kelson’s right of allocution and Utah R. Crim. P. 22(a) by failing to receive or review documents she claimed to have at sentencing.
At sentencing Kelson spoke at length, asserting she had documents (allegedly in the courtroom) proving her innocence and showing her attorney prevented her from testifying, and requested a continuance to present them.
The trial court denied the continuance, did not receive or review any documents, and proceeded to hear the prosecutor and impose sentence on March 5, 2010.
Kelson did not actually offer or submit the documents into the record or proffer their contents, nor did she explain how they related to mitigation or sentencing factors.
The appellate court reviewed whether the defendant’s constitutional and procedural right of allocution was violated and whether any failure to receive documents affected her substantial rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentencing court violated Kelson's allocution right / Rule 22(a) by not receiving or reviewing documents before sentencing	State: Court afforded Kelson opportunity to speak; no error because documents were not offered and no showing of prejudice	Kelson: Court denied her right to present information and undermined allocution by not reviewing documents she said were in court	Held: No violation — Kelson spoke at length; she never offered or proffered the documents or shown they were relevant or prejudicially omitted

State v. Wanosik, 79 P.3d 937 (Utah 2003) (right of allocution; purposes include defendant's opportunity to speak and providing judge relevant sentencing information)
State v. Rodrigues, 218 P.3d 610 (Utah 2009) (allocution satisfied if defendant present and had opportunity to speak)
State v. Anderson, 929 P.2d 1107 (Utah 1996) (allocution is part of right to be present)
United States v. Kellogg, 955 F.2d 1244 (9th Cir. 1992) (allocution right is not unlimited; court may limit irrelevant or tangential statements)
State v. Samul, 343 P.3d 719 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (sentencing allocution satisfied where mitigation factors were presented)
State v. Udy, 286 P.3d 345 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (allocution is both constitutional and statutory)
State v. Tingey, 336 P.3d 608 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (defendant's allocution right satisfied when he had presence and opportunity to speak)