Opinion ID: 2604731
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: failure to set forth reasons for denial of probation

Text: As already noted, we strongly recommend explanation of the reasons for denial of probation, Daniel v. State, supra, 644 P.2d at 180, but we have not been presented with a situation in which the failure to provide such explanation amounted to an abuse of discretion. In this case the court did refer to the severity of the crime as a reason for denial, but it pointed to all the factors in the case as indicating appellant to not be a fit subject for probation. All of the considerations outlined in the first part of this opinion were undoubtedly balanced with reference to the circumstances of this case by an experienced judge. He gave a reason for his sentence. He noted the potential for correction within 120 days. The record reflects the passage of sufficient time in which he could consider his options. It reflects the gathering of pertinent information. The court did not fail to give reasons for not granting probation, and failure to do so is not, ipso facto, error.