 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Dillard5/18/1999
After being convicted for driving under the influence , second offense, the defendant was sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days, with forty-five days to be served in jail and the balance on probation. The defendant was also prohibited from driving a motor vehicle for two years and ordered to pay a six hundred dollar ($600) fine. Ten months later, a probation violation warrant was issued. Following a revocation hearing, the defendant's probation was revoked and he was ordered to serve 120 days in jail. He now appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation. Finding no merit to the defendant's claim, we affirm.
The evidence at the revocation hearing established that Susan Cunningham met with the defendant while he was serving his original term of forty-five days in jail. At that time, she explained to him that he must attend alcohol treatment in order to comply with the terms of his probation. She told him to call the Safety Center when he was released. She also gave him paperwork for a licensed provider of alcohol treatment, but told him he could receive treatment elsewhere. She noted that the defendant had an "uncooperative attitude."
Jeri Holladay, the defendant's probation officer, unsuccessfully tried to contact the defendant when he was released from jail in early April 1997. She did not hear from him until late April when he called her to ask whether he could forego alcohol treatment or paying his fine because he had epilepsy and could not work. Ms. Holladay told the defendant to send her medical proof of his disability. In May, the defendant called Ms. Holladay again, and again, she told him to send her medical proof of his disability. Ms. Holladay sent the defendant a "first alert" memorandum, explaining that she had yet to receive medical documentation and if she did not, she would initiate revocation proceedings since he had not registered for alcohol treatment.
In June, Ms. Holladay received a doctor's letter that reflected the defendant could not work full-time because he suffered from epileptic seizures. The letter did not state that the defendant's medical disability prevented him from attending an alcohol treatment program. Two weeks later, the defendant called Ms. Cunningham and told her that he could not participate in an alcohol treatment program because he could not afford the cost. Ms. Cunningham instructed him to register anyway. Since the defendant had apparently moved out of town, she also told him he could attend a treatment program elsewhere, but if he did, he would also need to attend seventy-two Alcoholic Anonymous meetings. Ms. Holladay sent the defendant another detailed memorandum stressing the importance of beginning alcohol treatment and stating that the defendant must contact her within ten days or face revocation proceedings. Seven weeks passed. In August, Ms. Holladay received another doctor's letter reflecting that the defendant's medical condition prevented employment, but again not stating that his medical condition would preclude or interfere with alcohol treatment.
Instead of contacting Ms. Holladay, the defendant called Ms. Cunningham in late August. Ms. Cunningham told the defendant he had not given a reason for failing to attend alcohol treatment and that he needed to either register with the Safety Center for no-cost treatment or provide a doctor's letter stating his medical condition prevented him from attending treatment.
In September and October, Ms. Holladay sent the defendant two more memoranda reiterating that the defendant must begin treatment. The defendant did not respond. In November, Ms. Holladay sent a final memorandum to the defendant, giving him
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|