 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Banko5/16/2005
conditions of supervision. The $100 fee is in addition to, not in lieu of, the court's power to revoke supervision for defying the order to attend the VIP program.
Defendant also attempts to draw an analogy to People v. Prusak, 200 Ill. App. 3d 146 (1990). In that case, the defendant was sentenced to probation for a sex offense and was ordered to comply with the recommendations of a mental health agency. The agency recommended that the defendant participate in meetings of a sexual offenders group. However, the defendant was asked to leave the group because he claimed he did not remember committing the offense of which he was convicted. The trial court revoked the defendant's probation, but this court reversed. Noting evidence that denial is almost universal among sex offenders, we reasoned, "It seems paradoxical to classify an individual as a sex offender and sentence him to probation and then revoke his probation because he exhibits behavior commonly displayed by sex offenders." Prusak, 200 Ill. App. 3d at 150. The analogy defendant seeks to draw is inapt. He was not asked to admit or deny that he has a drinking problem; he was simply asked to comport himself in a manner appropriate to the program he was ordered to attend. Unlike a sex offender's propensity for denial, defendant's recalcitrance is not a characteristic of any classification that was placed upon him by the trial court. Defendant's personal attitudes about the consumption of alcohol do not place him in any special category apart from other offenders who refuse to comply with the conditions of probation or court supervision and who suffer the attendant consequences. The trial court's decision is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Kane County is affirmed.
Affirmed.
BOWMAN and CALLUM, JJ., concur.
|