holding that criminal defendants do not have right to probation and that sentencing of defendant to incarceration rather than probation due to defendant's inability to speak English was rationally related to government interest in sentencing individual convicted of second DWI offense
How later courts described this case
- holding that criminal defendants do not have right to probation and that sentencing of defendant to incarceration rather than probation due to defendant's inability to speak English was rationally related to government interest in sentencing individual convicted of second DWI offense
- stating that there "is no fundamental right to receive probation"
- stating that there Ais no fundamental right to receive probation@
- rejecting defendant’s disparate treatment argument because accepting it would lead to unintended consequences better left for the legislature to decide
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MEYERS, Judge,
concurring on Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review.
I agree with the Court that discrimination on the basis of a person’s inability to speak English does not raise a presumption of discrimination on the basis of race or national origin. However, had the record in this case reflected that appellant’s inability to speak English was actually a pretext for racial discrimination, I would not hesitate to reverse his conviction. For example, were it to appear that this judge commonly denied probation to similarly situated Hispanic persons who were able to speak the English language, the inference might be compelling that he was actually motivated by racial animus. As it is, however, we have no reason to suspect, as an empirical matter, that he did *132 not in fact deny probation for the reason actually given. Accordingly, appellant has not established a case of racial discrimination on this record. For this reason, I concur in the judgment.