Steven Lee Kellam was convicted by a Chatham County jury of DUI and violation of the open container law.1 His motion for new trial was denied, and he appeals, asserting as his sole enumeration of error that the trial court had no authority to impose attendance at the Chatham County DUI court treatment program as part of his sentence.2 We disagree and affirm. Kellam complains that the establishment of the Chatham County treatment program “by judicial edict is a manifest abuse of discretion” that exceeds the court’s powers. OCGA § 42-8-35 provides: “The court shall determine the terms and conditions of probation and may provide that the probationer shall” comply with certain enumerated conditions. This Code section, however, “is not exclusive in its provisions but the court has authority to impose restrictions not specifically listed therein.” Citation and punctuation omitted. Falkenhainer v. State , 122 Ga. App. 478, 479-480 177 SE2d 380 1970 decided under former Ga. Code Ann. § 27-2711. “A trial court has broad discretion in sentencing to impose conditions reasonably related to the nature and circumstances of the offense and the rehabilitative goals of probation. Cit.” Harrell v. State , 253 Ga. App. 440, 441 1 559 SE2d 155 2002.
In addition, OCGA § § 40-6-391 c 1 D, c 2 D, and c 3 D provide for the completion of a DUI risk reduction program as part of a defendant’s sentence upon conviction; § § c 2 E and c 3 E provide for clinical evaluation of the need for a substance abuse treatment program and treatment if indicated. Such programs having been provided for in the statutory scheme, it is certainly within the trial court’s discretion to mandate them as one of the conditions of probation. The probation and suspension statutes in Georgia vest broad discretion in trial judges. In the absence of express authority to the contrary, we see no logical reason why any reasonable condition imposed for probation or suspension of a sentence by a trial court should not be approved. Probated and suspended sentences, upon reasonable conditions, have traditionally been used by trial judges in Georgia as effective tools of rehabilitation and serve a useful purpose in appropriate cases as an alternative to confinement. Citations and punctuation omitted. State v. Collett , 232 Ga. 668, 670 208 SE2d 472 1974.
