After doing an independant investigation, including calling the state's witnesses, it was discovered that there was a viable defense to all allegations. It appeared that the new charges did not have a solid basis, and the defendant had taken one of the required courses and was enrolled in the other.
Due to the defendant's critical witness having to leave on military orders on the hearing day, the case was called for hearing early. It was discovered that the victim witness was not present and likely did not receive a subpoena. After discussion and motion by the defense, the state was forced to abandon the violation allegations based on the new charges. The hearing commenced on the technicals, however, counsel then challenged the validity of the underlying probation plea. The DA was not prepared to prove this part of his case. After further discussion and motions by the defense, which culminated with the clerk's file and clerk of court having to be brought into court as well as the DA being subsituted with another, the state finanlly presented its case and both sides rested.
The judge ruled that the state had not proven their case, and stated further that it appeared that the defense had come accross an oversight which occured during the original plea that would serve as a reminder to the state that documents need to be reviewed carefully.