Grady Holt Queen was indicted for arson in the first degree and as an habitual offender. He received a jury trial on the arson count, was fоund guilty, and was sentenced to the maximum sentence of twenty years (ten to serve, ten on probation, a fine, and restitution) as an habitual offender, pursuant to the provisions of OCGA § 17-10-7.
1. In his first enumeration of error, Queen contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a recidivist because his prior felony conviction had been discharged under OCGA § 42-8-60, the first-offender statute.
Appellant was given first-offender treatment after he entered a guilty plea to three counts of financial transaction card fraud and was given three years оn probation on each count, to be served concurrently. Queen successfully completed the terms of his sentence and was discharged on August 7, 1984. The arson felony was committed on August 22, 1985.
Because part of his sentence was probated, we find that Queen was sentenced under subsection (a) of OCGA § 17-10-7 and not under subsection (b) as he contends. Subsection (a) provides that a person conviсted of a subsequent offense “shall be sentenced to undergo the longest period of time prescribed for the punishment of the subsеquent offense . . . ,” but that “the trial judge may, in his discretion, probate or suspend the maximum sentence prescribed for the offense.” In contrast, subsection (b) requires a fourth felony conviction to be served for the maximum time provided in the sentence without eligibility for parоle. Under subsection (c), “conviction of two or more crimes charged on separate counts of one indictment or aсcusation, or in two or more indictments or accusations consolidated for trial, shall be deemed to be only one conviсtion.” As appellant’s prior offenses were listed as different counts in one indictment, he had only one prior conviction under this code section.
The sole question for decision is whether this prior conviction can be considered when he is sentenced under subsection (a) because
*795
he was given first offender treatment and he successfully completed the terms of his probated sentence. The purpose of first offender treatment is to permit the offender to take advantage of an opportunity for rеhabilitation without the stigma of a felony conviction. “If, however, such offender does not take advantage of such oppоrtunity for rehabilitation, his trial which has, in effect, been suspended is continued and an adjudication of guilt is made and a sentence entered.”
State v. Wiley,
Under Ga. L. 1968, p. 324, § 1, the forerunner to present OCGA § 42-8-60, which provided for probation for first offenders, it was provided that, “[u]pon violation of the terms of probation, or upon a conviction for another crime, the court may enter an adjudication of guilt and proceed as otherwise provided.” (Emphasis supplied.) The amendments to this code section which appear in Ga. L. 1985, p. 380, § 1 changed this language to read: “Upon violation by the dеfendant of the terms of probation or upon a conviction for another crime during the period of probation . . . the court may enter an adjudication of guilt.” (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 42-8-62 provides that upon fulfillment of the terms of probation “the defendant shall be disсharged without court adjudication of guilt. The discharge shall completely exonerate the defendant of any criminal purpose and shall not affect any of his civil rights or liberties; and the defendant shall not be considered to have a criminal conviction.” Use of the prior finding of guilt is set forth in OCGA § 42-8-65 and provides that: “If otherwise allowable by law in any subsequent prosecution of the defendant for any other offense, a prior finding оf guilt may be pleaded and proven as if an adjudication of guilt had been entered and relief had not been granted pursuant to this article.” (Emphasis supplied.) This section further provides to whom the record of discharge may be released and that “no such agency, law enforcement agency or court may release any information regarding an adjudication of guilt under this article exсept to disclose the fact that the defendant has exercised his or her right to first offender treatment under Georgia law and that suсh person has been discharged.”
The foregoing provisions, however, have been held not to act as a bar to permitting a dеfendant to impeach a witness with her first offender record, although she has fulfilled the terms of her probation.
Gilstrap v. State,
2. The admission of appellant’s apрearance bond in the arson case into evidence was not error. Appellant contends that it was not properly identified and that a foundation had not been laid for its admission into evidence.
The bond was signed by one Cecil Cole as surety. As no objection was raised to its authenticity in the court below, it cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Morris v. State,
As to the claim that a prоper foundation was not laid for the introduction of the document into evidence, there was testimony that Cecil Cole sold the hоuseboat which was burned to the appellant, and that the rightful owner of the boat could not get him to reveal where Queen lived or provide information about the sale of the boat. Appellant’s release from custody upon a bond provided by Cole was therefore relevant to show the close relationship between the two men. Appellant, however, testified he was afraid of Cole and had problems getting in touch with him to obtain title to the houseboat. He also testified several times that he did not know how to get in touch with Cole and that Cole signed the bond because he “was the cause of this.” Accordingly, there was no error in admitting this documеnt because it wás relevant to appellant’s conduct in allegedly purchasing the boat and in providing a possible motive for burning it. Quеstions of relevancy are generally matters within the court’s discretion.
Pope v. Propst,
Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and case remanded for resentencing.