or to show any legal cause why sentence should not be imposed." Utah R.Crim. P. 22(a). Based on "both the plain language of rule 22 and the approach of other jurisdictions with similar rules," our supreme court has explained that "the 'shall afford language requires trial courts to affirmatively provide the defense an opportunity to address the court and present reasonably reliable and relevant information in the mitigation of a sentence." State v. Wanosik, 2003 UT 46, ¶23, 79 P.3d 937. In this context, the "defense" refers to both the defendant and defense counsel. See id. ("[Bloth the defendant and counsel shall be affirmatively afforded an opportunity to make a statement, present any information in mitigation of punishment, or show any legal cause why sentence should not be d 615 (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 2008 UT 46, 79 P.3d 987. In sum, a
holding that trial courts admonishment when defendant interrupted pronouncement of sentence was not a violation of defendants right to allocution when at the sentencing hearing the defendants counsel spoke on his behalf holding that the trial court violated the defendants allocution rights when the court in the defendants absence did not afford  defense counsel an opportunity to present information in mitigation of punishment holding that where defendants counsel objected to the trial judges evidentiary rulings in evidentiary hearing but did not object to the defendants absence any claim of error due to defendants absence had been waived holding that the constitutional right to present a defense is not violated by the exclusion of a defendants proffered evidence where he is otherwise given the opportunity to present his defense and crossexamine the key prosecution witnesses holding that the trial court violated the defendants allocution rights when the court sentenced him without allowing him to offer mitigating remarks