 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Dillard5/18/1999
nt also claims that once he became aware a warrant was issued against him, he "took all necessary measures" to comply with the terms of his probation. Even if that was true, the defendant should have complied with the terms of his probation during the nine months before a warrant issued.
In a related argument, the defendant attempts to compare the fees required for alcohol treatment to restitution, arguing that his failure to attend alcohol treatment was not willful because he did not have the financial ability to pay the necessary fees. The defendant even contends that once he knew he could obtain alcohol treatment without cost to him, "he immediately inquired about the program at the Veteran's Administration Hospital for his alcohol treatment." We need not address the defendant's comparison of treatment fees to restitution because even assuming the analogy was sound, the record fails to support the defendant's claims. The record contains no evidence that the defendant was financially unable to pay the necessary treatment fees; the record reflects only that the defendant told Ms. Cunningham and Ms. Holladay he could not afford the fees. As early as June 1997, the defendant was specifically instructed how he could attend treatment at no cost, but he made no attempt to take advantage of that option. Instead, he stalled for six months and made a last-ditch effort to avoid revocation only after a warrant issued against him.
In short, the trial court did not abuse its discretion or act arbitrarily in revoking the defendant's probation. To the contrary, substantial evidence exists to support the trial court's decision. Accordingly, we affirm the revocation order.
JOHN H. PEAY, Judge
CONCUR:
DAVID H. WELLES, Judge
J. CURWOOD WITT, JR., Judge
|