United States v. Craig, No. 14-3187 (10th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant-Appellant David Craig was convicted of possessing a stolen firearm for which he was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. After his release from prison, he violated various conditions of his supervised release. He stipulated to several violations, and the district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 14 months’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release. On appeal, he contended the district court denied him the right to allocute, as afforded him by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. Under the then-current Rule 32.1, the trial court was required to give the defendant the opportunity to make a statement and present any mitigating information. Reading further in the context of defendant's argument on appeal, the Tenth Circuit considered whether Rule 32.1 required a trial court to affirmatively extend to the defendant a personal invitation to make a statement. If yes, then the trial court record in this case would have established that the district court erred. While number of federal courts of appeals have held that Rule 32.1 did contain such a requirement, many reached the conclusion that the failure to let a defendant allocute might constitute "plain" error if "clear or obvious" under "well-settled law." Because neither the Supreme Court nor the Tenth Circuit interpreted Rule 32.1 to require a personal invitation to allocute, the Tenth Circuit concluded any potential error in not addressing defendant personally was not "plain." Furthermore, the Court concluded that any potential error did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceeding: defense counsel explicitly acknowledged that defendant both understood the district court’s proposed sentence and had no intention to challenge its severity. After careful consideration of defendant's argument on appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed his conviction.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.