I have a question regarding a VOP case, where the VOP contains both a technical violation, and a new law violation, which are related in tandem. The defendant is definitely pleading not guilty to the new law violation (and from what I gather, is indeed not guilty--so, let us just assume this is valid for the moment). My concern is that, even though there is a technical VOP involved (entering a bar--special condition), when requesting reinstatement of supervision, it would look much better to have the primary law violation already disposed of. So, how might a defendant argue to have the VOP hearing postponed?Thank you all for your replies. As I understand the matter of technical violations, it is important that the State demonstrate the violation was done "willingly" (I really need a cite for that, and can't find it in the Statutes; perhaps in FAC?). In this case, the defendant (who is under 21, but over 18) did enter a bar with some friends, but mentions that the intention was to "order a meal and play pool" (although, unknown to them at the time, the bar served no meals--none of the group consumed alcohol, or attempted to do so). So, to my mind, this suggests an "unwilling" or accidental violation of the technicality. The VOP hearing is this coming week, and it doesn't appear that the PD office wants to address this issue--they apparently want to enter a guilty plea. I'm not an attorney, but I'm leaning toward relaying these details to the court, as an outside observer, inclusive of positive character references of the defendant, via an Amicus Curiae brief--do you folks think this might be beneficial?