In view of the fact that the Huffman admits that his participation in the program was terminated, and in view of the fact that the statute requires that he serve the sentence, and in view of the fact that he acknowledges that he is now serving the sentence, we fail to see how appellant can complain of the dismissal of his claim for declaratory relief. He fails to plead facts showing that any rights of due process were violated in view of the fact that the court would have no discretion in the matter. Huffman does not argue that it is unconstitutional for the legislature to withhold from the trial judge any discretion as to whether to deny probation at that point. He argues merely that it is a violation of due process for the Department of Corrections to order the sentence executed instead of the court doing so. Huffman therefore demonstrates no need for any declaratory relief.
Point is denied.
We hold that the trial court did not err in dismissing appellant's petition for declaratory relief. Judgment is affirmed. Most of the report is unintelligible. The only parts we can interpret are the part in which appellant was interviewed, and the part containing the recommendation of the committee.