that he administered the “police officer’s DWI Statutory Warning.” Nevertheless, appellant contends that the warning given was incomplete in that it failed to advise appellant “that he had a right to have a hearing and that if he failed to take the breath test, that before his license could be suspended, that there would have to be a determination on probable cause to believe that he had committed a DWI, and probable cause to believe that he was operating a vehicle on a public roadway.” According to the officer’s express testimony, however, appellant was indeed informed that he had a right to a hearing. We hold that the additional information concerning the requirement that a probable cause determination be made at the hearing is simply not required. See Erdman, 861 S.W.2d at 893 (<HOLDING>). “An officer advising an accused of his
holding that a statute must not be given the one of two reasonable interpretations which will render it unconstitutional holding that only the two statutorily required warnings should be given holding in the absence of exceptional circumstances deference should be given to trial court holding that if there is only one construction that will permit all parts of the deed to be given effect it should be followed holding that the guidelines should be given heavy weight and that nonguideline sentences should be imposed only in unusual cases for clearly identified and persuasive reasons