 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Noel12/1/2005
dant cannot disgorge any benefit she derived and the parties cannot be placed in the status quo ante.
We are persuaded by those cases holding that remedial costs which have been advanced for probation need not be refunded. We therefore conclude that, because the purpose of probation is primarily rehabilitative, and because defendant could have benefited from the supervisory services she received and paid for, the trial court did not err in denying her motion for a refund of the probation supervision fee. In addition, we note that the record does not reflect, nor does defendant argue, that she opposed the imposition of probation, or that she sought to stay the sentence while her appeal was pending.
The order is affirmed.
JUDGE VOGT and JUDGE ROMÁN concur.
|