In State v. Grenier we rejected a similar argument, reviewing for plain error because the question had not been adequately preserved at trial. Further, defendant bargained away at least part of the position he now maintains in return for the State's agreement not to offer certain evidence, and his post-charge objection, to the extent shown by the transcript, also appears not to fully raise his appeal argument. The situation in the instant case is easily distinguishable because defendant here never denied he committed the acts charged by the State. When the need to accept responsibility at sentencing does not expose the defendant to possible perjury charges arising out of his trial testimony, or compel a waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination, Loveland is not implicated. Defendant's argument over the law did not create an unfair restriction on his ability to seek a fair sentence.
Defendant objects to the imposition of two probation conditions.
The trial court's order placing defendant on probation requires him, inter alia, to submit to alcosensor testing and urinalysis when required by his probation officer or the officer's authorized representative. The State has explicitly declined to oppose their deletion, and we therefore modify the judgment to delete these two conditions of defendant's probation. All of the foregoing issues were placed before the Court via the brief filed on defendant's behalf by his appellate counsel. Defendant also appears pro se to raise additional issues, to which we now turn. The first argument in defendant's brief is that the initial judge erred in denying a motion to dismiss for lack of a prima facie case.