In State v. Brooks, 156 Ariz. 529, 530-31, 753 P.2d 1185, 1186-87 (App. 1988), the defendant entered into a plea agreement that provided for either a five-year prison term or placement on IPS. The trial court ordered the probation department to supplement the presentence report by considering the defendant's qualifications for IPS. The probation officer recommended against IPS, concluding that the defendant's likelihood of success was marginal. The prosecutor then argued that without the recommendation of the probation department the trial court was precluded from imposing IPS. Finding several aggravating factors, the court sentenced the defendant to prison. On appeal, the defendant argued that the probation officer's authority to determine whether a defendant should be placed in an IPS program invaded the province of the judiciary in determining punishment. See id. at 531, 753 P.2d at 1187. Nonetheless, the Court affirmed, holding in part that "intensive probation supervision is available to defendants only where the probation officer makes such a recommendation." Id.