In Ivey v. State, No. 03-06-00683-CR, 250 S.W.3d 121, 2007 WL 4245892 (Tex. App.--Austin Oct. 19, 2007, pet. filed), Ivey did not want probation for his DWI conviction and, on appeal, contended that the trial court erred by admitting testimony from three witnesses concerning the conditions of probation for the offense. A probation officer testified that a defendant would not receive alcohol or substance abuse counseling if he were sentenced to "straight" jail time. A counselor then testified regarding the typical counseling requirements for a defendant placed on probation. The third witness, an assistant Travis County attorney, testified about the requirements for a defendant to be eligible for jury recommended probation under Article 42.12, section 4. The court held that the evidence was admissible because "relevant" evidence in the punishment contest is that which helps the jury "tailor the sentence to the particular offense" and "tailor the sentence to the particular defendant."