The record in this case reveals that the appellant apparently suffered from a chronic inability to make child support payments when due. Cоnvicted of abandonment in May 1978, he was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment in the Grady County Detention
Appellant was again arrested for non-payment in June 1982 and, after a hearing, his suspended sentеnce was again revoked. As in August 1979, a printed revocation form was used, with the term “probation” and the reference to Ga. Code Ann. § 27-2713 (OCGA § 42-8-38) marked out with the typеwriter and the words “suspension” and “§ 27-2709” (OCGA § 42-8-34) typed in their respective places. On this latter occasion, however, appellant was placed under special work-release conditions that required him to spend every night in the detention complex but allowed him to leave and return at certain hours sо that he might continue to work. He was also required to turn over his uncashed weekly paycheck to a county probation officer so that there might bе deducted sums to be applied to a court-imposed fine, to the cost of room and board at the county facility, and to the child-support arrеarage. This arrangement was to continue until the fine and the arrearage were paid in full. The court stated that the right to review the sentence was reserved and that at the end of the work-release confinement appellant was to be “remanded ... to [the county] probation office to sеrve under the original abandonment sentence.”
In August 1982, after appellant had allegedly failed to comply with the conditions regarding prompt return at thе end of each working day, the arrangement was revoked following a hearing, and appellant was sentenced to serve eleven months in the detеntion complex. The same printed revocation form was used, but the printed terminology and citation of Code section 27-2713 were left intact. Appellant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in revoking “a non-existent probation” pursuant to Code Ann. § 27-2713. Held:
1. At issue is the interpretation of sections 17-10-1 (Code Ann. § 27-2502), 42-8-34 (Code Ann. § 27-2709), and 42-8-38 (Code Ann. § 27-2713) and their interaction with one another. Section 17-10-1 (Code Ann. § 27-2502) explicitly authorizes the judge imposing a sentence pursuant to conviction of a misdemeanor or felony “to suspend or probate said sentence, under such rules and regulations as he deems proper,” and “to revoke said suspension or probation when the defendant has violated” its conditions. Section 42-8-34 (c) (Code
Except as noted in Division 2, infra, the procedures fоllowed in the case sub judice comport with the statutory prescriptions. The trial judge acted well within his discretion in suspending appellant’s sentence and in revоking and reinstating the suspension at the August 1979 and June 1982 hearings. See Daniel v. Whitlock,
2. The court recognizes that not all appeals are as artfully drawn as might be desired. While counsel should be urged to strive for maximum clarity, nevertheless, “[w]here it is apparent from the notice of appeal, the record, the enumeration of errors, or any combination of the foregoing what judgment or judgments were appealed from or what errors are sought to be asserted upon appeal,” the court regards it as its duty to consider what it perceives to be the substance of the enumerations, even though the document “fails to
Although the single enumeration in this case еmploys a misnomer in complaining of the trial court’s “revoking anon-existent probation,” the court notes that at the June 1982 hearing the trial court went beyond mere reinstatement of the previously suspended sentence and ordered appellant confined to the county detention facility except during working hours, with “the original abandonment sentence” to be “serve [d]” after payments were completed. It is patent that incarceration in such а facility, even with permission to leave its confines for limited purposes, constitutes a revocation of the suspension and actual service оf the sentence. While § 42-8-34 (d) (Code Ann. § 27-2709) empowers the trial court in an abandonment case to impose or to revoke suspension of a sentencе at any time before the majority of the child or children involved, once the time prescribed in the sentence has actually been served (whether in confinement or on probation), jurisdiction over the offender no longer exists. Compare Howell v. State,
Since it is apparеnt from the court’s examination of the record and of appellant’s brief that, however imperfectly he may have expressed it, it is this issue that appellant is attempting to articulate, the case should be remanded.
The case is accordingly reversed and remanded to the trial court for clаrification of the sentence and proceedings not inconsistent with the above. Jones v. State, supra.
Judgment reversed and remanded.
Notes
The court notes thаt on one occasion near the conclusion of the June 1982 hearing the trial court employed the word “probation.” He had consistently used “suspension” and “suspended” throughout the hearing, however, and the single instance must therefore be regarded as lapsus linguae.