Juhan v. State, 322 Ga. App. 620

Juhan was convicted of theft by taking and entering an automobile with intent to commit theft, and sentenced to probation for seven years.
While on probation, he violated it by committing new offenses and was sentenced to work release for 18 months.
In September 2008, he left the work release program and did not return.
He was indicted for felony escape on June 10, 2009, arrested November 11, 2011, and tried on March 12, 2012.
The trial court found him guilty of felony escape; he moved for a new trial, which was denied; he appealed.
The State argued the indictment and proof properly showed he was serving a lawful sentence for theft by taking at the time of escape; the defense contested this.
The appellate court affirmed, holding no fatal variance and that the lawful confinement element was established.
Procedural notes discuss timing of the motion for new trial relative to judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient proof that Juhan was serving a lawful sentence for Theft by Taking at the time of escape?	Juhan argues the State failed to prove lawful confinement.	State contends Juhan was serving a valid sentence and escaped from lawful confinement.	No fatal variance; unlawful confinement element proven; conviction affirmed.
Is the motion for new trial timely, given when judgment was entered?	Motion was premature or not ripe.	Motion ripened upon entry of judgment.	Motion for new trial ripened upon judgment entry; denial upheld.

Tremble v. Tremble, 288 Ga. 666 (2011) (motion for new trial timing discussed (prematurity/validity) in civil context; applied to criminal analysis for ripening of the motion)
Rockholt v. State, 291 Ga. 85 (2012) (criminal appeal timing; supports ripening of motion for new trial)
McClanahan v. State, 196 Ga. App. 737 (1990) (early rule on timing of motions for new trial (overruled on other grounds))
Zant v. Owens, 244 Ga. 494 (1979) (statutory/constitutional framework relevant to escape and confinement)