In State v. Montgomery, 115 Ariz. 583, 566 P.2d 1329 (1977), the defendant pled guilty to second degree burglary and was placed on probation. 115 Ariz. at 583, 566 P.2d at 1329. Montgomery appealed, arguing that one condition of that probation was unconstitutional. Id. The supreme court held that if a defendant found the conditions of probation too onerous, he could "reject probation and ask to be incarcerated instead . . . ." Id. at 584, 566 P.2d at 1330. Montgomery does not stand for the proposition that defendants convicted of offenses for which only probation is available can simply choose to reject probation and thereby avoid the statutorily defined consequences of their criminal acts. The underlying premise in Montgomery was that a defendant could choose between probation, with its conditions imposed by the court, or incarceration. 115 Ariz. at 584, 566 P.2d at 1330. In that case, probation was optional as an alternative to incarceration. Id.