My boyfriend was charged a Class A misdemeanor in 2007, he was put on probation but violated soon after. A warrant was not served on this violation until July 2010. He was again put on probation but was violated for non-payment of restitution. However, he was unemployed and offered his probation officer some of the costs every time he went but his PO would always tell him to just bring it next time. He hasn't committed any new crimes since the assault and has stayed out of trouble. If he has a full time job, passes a drug test, and pays off his fines, is it possible for him to get out of going to jail? Especially when the jail is already overcrowded? And there is a statute of limitation violation on the first violation (served after 11-29) and he was never given a public defender in any court appearance, both of these were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court.

The warrant does not have to be issued or if issued served, as long as the PO reported the violation.

And he may not always qualify for a public defender, unless he meets certain income guidelines. At his appearance, did he ask for a public defender.

Also he is already guility, probation violation is not a new charge, merely to see if he violated , while he should have an attorney, he is not required to have one. Also on probation he has signed most of his rights away to be on probation

But merely non payment, seldom do they do anything, except warn and put back on probation

How interesting that both "Kimberly" AND her boyfriend have the same problem AND on the other thread she seems to have the info (given to her by a Judge). https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/criminal-law/violation-misdemeanor-probation-tn-319871-2.html#post2842206

I'd like her to ask the Judge where a person is entitled (no matter what) to a public defender under Federal Law.

No we do not have the same problem. And the other he was merely asking about warrants. And the judge said what the post you are referring to states. This question is completely different from the one I answered. Miranda v. Arizona says you have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for you. Another case ruled that in revocation of probation hearings if jail time will be issued you must be provided a lawyer.

Miranda V. Arizona has had dozens of challenges and case law has changed or allowed limitations.

The MUST is the issue, no there is no requirement that an attorney MUST be provided, the person must have ability to an attorney. For example in GA, if you can afford bail, you are considered to have enough money to afford one, So the state will not provide one.

Next there is no new time, since the sentence in probation is already there, merely waived for probation, while they have a right to have an attorney, they do not have to be told their rights specificly.

So you need to understand the term "MUST" is wrong, it is they can have one, not must, and one is only provided if they can not afford one, according to that states rules on being able to afford one.

kimberly_1238 does not find this helpful : She is being rude. And did not thoroughly read what she has been commenting on.


I'd suggest you read AMHD's policy in "helpful" and "not helpful."

The Law does not say you MUST be provided with an Attorney. Either read it again OR ask someone to explain it to you.

You were and are incorrect.