In State v. James, 2025 UT 53, the Utah Supreme Court took a close look at that question.
What Happened in State v. James
Franklin James entered a plea agreement on several felony charges. As part of the deal, both the prosecution and the defense recommended probation with residential treatment. AP&P agreed. James even wrote letters to the judge expressing remorse and asking for a chance to rebuild his life.
But at sentencing, the judge rejected the joint recommendation and imposed prison time. Importantly, the judge never invited James to speak for himself. James also didn’t ask for the chance.
On appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals ruled that this error alone required a new sentencing hearing. They relied on federal law from the Tenth Circuit, which treats the denial of allocution as “presumptively prejudicial.”
The Utah Supreme Court disagreed.
Why the Supreme Court Reversed
The Court agreed that the sentencing judge made a clear mistake. Utah law requires judges to give defendants the chance to speak before sentencing. But the justices held that not every error automatically results in a new hearing.
To win on an “unpreserved” error—one that wasn’t raised in the moment—a defendant must show prejudice. They must demonstrate a reasonable probability that the mistake affected the outcome.
The Court rejected the idea that prejudice should be presumed. Here’s why:
Utah’s sentencing system works differently
Federal courts use a determinate sentencing system. Judges choose exact sentence lengths. Because they have so much discretion, allocution often matters.
Utah uses an indeterminate sentencing system. Judges mostly make binary decisions—probation vs. prison and concurrent vs. consecutive terms. The Board of Pardons later decides the actual length of incarceration.
Because of this structure, the Court noted that allocution is less likely to change the outcome in the typical Utah case.
The Defendant still Needs to Show Actual Impact
James argued that speaking might have changed the judge’s mind. But the record already included his letters, counsel’s arguments, and his history of addiction. The judge still rejected probation because of James’s extensive criminal history.
The Court found no evidence that a personal statement would have tipped the scale.
What This Decision Means for Defendants
The right to allocution is still important. Every Utah judge must offer it, and defendants should take it seriously. Speaking directly to the court can humanize a case and give meaning to remorse and accountability.
However, the decision clarifies that:
- If a defendant doesn’t object at sentencing,
- And the judge forgets to offer allocution,
- The defendant must still show a reasonable probability that the error changed the result.
Simply proving that the judge failed to ask is not enough.
Takeaways for Anyone Facing Sentencing in Utah
- Always exercise your right to speak. It’s your direct moment before the court.
- Make sure the judge offers the opportunity. If not, your attorney should immediately raise the issue.
- Be prepared to show meaningful reasons why your statement matters.
At Stone River Law, we help clients prepare thoughtful, strategic allocution statements. These statements often highlight rehabilitation, responsibility, family support, and forward-looking plans—material that judges regularly consider during sentencing.
If you’re facing sentencing and want an advocate who understands both the law and the human side of your case, we’re here to help.