State v. Tapusoa, 467 P.3d 912

Raymond Tapusoa pled guilty to burglary and possession of a firearm by a restricted person; other charges were dismissed but restitution for related losses was included.
A victim impact statement and the pre-sentence report (PSR) recommended restitution of $3,167.66 based on an itemized list of repairs, replaced property, and rekeying locks.
At sentencing the court invited Tapusoa to speak; defense counsel asked that Tapusoa’s mother be allowed to address the court, but the judge declined and directed counsel to relay the mother’s statements instead.
The victim testified to the same $3,167.66 loss and the State recommended that restitution amount; defense counsel did not object at sentencing and the court ordered restitution and concurrent prison terms.
The next day counsel filed a restitution objection; after a hearing the court rejected the objection, finding the amount sufficiently supported and declining to require additional receipts.
Tapusoa appealed, arguing (1) violation of his right of allocution and Utah R. Crim. P. 22(a) by precluding his mother from speaking directly, and (2) ineffective assistance because counsel failed to object to restitution at sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether refusing to let the defendant’s mother directly address the court at sentencing violated the defendant’s right of allocution and Utah R. Crim. P. 22(a)	Tapusoa: mother’s direct allocution was part of mitigation; counsel’s proxy was an inadequate substitute	State/Court: allocution satisfied because Tapusoa was present and spoke; counsel relayed mother’s information; court may manage how mitigation is presented	Court affirmed: no violation of allocution or Rule 22; court did not abuse discretion in requiring statements be presented through counsel
Whether defense counsel’s failure to object to restitution at sentencing amounted to ineffective assistance	Tapusoa: counsel should have objected to the restitution order at sentencing	State/Court: no prejudice shown from the omission; Tapusoa concedes no concrete adverse items or likely different outcome	Court affirmed: ineffective-assistance claim fails for lack of prejudice

State v. Kelson, 348 P.3d 373 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (allocution satisfied if defendant present and allowed to speak)
State v. Wanosik, 79 P.3d 937 (Utah 2003) (allocution is part of the right to be present)
West Valley City v. Walljasper, 286 P.3d 948 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (defendant has constitutional and statutory right to be heard before sentence)
State v. Tingey, 336 P.3d 608 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (Rule 22 codifies allocution; defendant and counsel must be afforded opportunity to speak)
Daughton v. State, 308 P.3d 537 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (trial court has substantial discretion in conducting sentencing)
Maxfield v. Herbert, 284 P.3d 647 (Utah 2012) (district court docket management reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Lindsey, 340 P.3d 176 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (court may limit manner of presenting evidence at sentencing if information has been received)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Peterson, 462 P.3d 421 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (ineffective-assistance standard reaffirmed)
State v. Ricks, 436 P.3d 350 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (dispose of ineffectiveness claims on prejudice ground if easier)