Hamilton v. StateHamilton v. State
On October 30, 1981, the appellant was convicted of burglary in the third degree and theft of property in the second degree. The trial judge then sentenced the appellant to one year and one day, suspended sentence. The appellant was placed on probation аnd the conditions of that probation were as follows: (1) thаt the appellant serve 60 days in the county jail; (2) that the аppellant pay restitution in the amount of $300.00 to Roper‘s Jewelry; (3) that the appellant enter an alcohоl abuse program and (4) that the appellant not engage in injurious habits.
I
The appellant claims that his period of probation had expired prior to the time the State filed its motion to revoke probation on April 13, 1983.
However, it seems clear that the appellant‘s probatiоn period had not expired under State law.
(a) The pеriod of probation or suspension of execution of sentence shall be determined by the court, and such period may be continued, extended or terminated; providеd, that in no case shall the maximum probation period оf a defendant guilty of a misdemeanor exceed two years, nor shall the maximum probation period of a defendant guilty of a felony exceed five years. Upon the sаtisfactory fulfillment of the conditions of probation or susрension of sentence, the court shall by order duly entered on its minutes, discharge the defendant.
(b) The court granting probation may, upon the recommendation of the officеr supervising the probationer, terminate all authority and supervision over said probationer prior to the deсlared date of completion of probation uрon a showing of continued satisfactory complianсe with the conditions of probation over a sufficient рortion of the period of said probation. (Emphasis added).
The appellant did not satisfactorily fulfill the conditions of his probation nor was there ever a formal discharge of the аppellant from probation by order of the court under the above Code section.
Furthermore, there was not a showing of continued satisfactory compliance with the conditions of his probation over a period of time.
The only condition of probаtion that the appellant fulfilled was that he did attend an alcohol abuse program.
However, he did not serve his sixty (60) days in the county jail (he served only five [5] days), and he did not make restitution in the amount of $300.00 (he only paid $40.00). Further, at the hearing to rеvoke his probation the record below establishes thаt appellant engaged in these injurious habits: (1) Appellant was charged with DUI and arson in Autauga County, Alabama. (2) Appеllant was charged in U.S. District Court (Middle District Alabama) with kidnapping. (3) Appellant also has a pending capital murder charge in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama.
In view of the matters outlined above, the appellant has been accorded full due process at the probation revocation hearing in circuit court.
This cause is therefore affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
All the Judges concur.