A trial court can "affirmatively provide" the defense an opportunity for allocution by extending a "simple verbal invitation or question," but "it is the court which is responsible for raising the matter." Id. 19 A violation of a defendant's right to allocution usually arises where a trial court has prevented or prohibited the defendant from speaking altogether or imposed sentence in the defendant's absence. In State v. Udy, for instance, this court determined that a defendant was not "afforded his right to allocution" because "the trial court refused to hear any statement in mitigation" from either the defendant or defense counsel during a sentencing review hearing. 2012 UT App 244, ¶¶ 28-29, 286 P.3d 345; see also State v. Legg, 2006 UT App 367, paras. 1, 6, 2006 WL 2578913 (<HOLDING>); State v. Wanosik, 2001 UT App 241, ¶ 32, 31
holding that the trial court violated the defendants allocution rights when the court sentenced him without allowing him to offer mitigating remarks 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 the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion to substitute counsel on the strength of gonzalezs sworn responses at the pleataking that no one was threatening him or forcing him to plead where the defendant alleged that his attorney forced him to plead guilty  and threatened him if he did not take the plea holding that a defendant must have notice that the trial court might sentence him to death holding that the trial court may not retain jurisdiction over a sentence when the defendant is sentenced under the guidelines