Korey Tyson pled guilty to two counts of burglary and was sentenced by the trial court. The trial court subsequently modified the probationary portion of his sentence by imposing a condition which banished him from the subdivision in which he committed the burglaries. Tyson appeals the modification of his sentence arguing that the trial court lacked the authority to modify his sentence and also that the modification unlawfully increased his sentence. We find no error and affirm.
The record shows that Tyson entered a guilty plea to two counts *296 of burglary on August 8, 2008. The trial court sentenced Tyson to ten years, ninety to one hundred twenty days to be served in a probation detention center with the remainder to be served on probation. Both the plea and the sentence were entered during the April term of court. See OCGA § 15-6-3 (36) (A). 1
On September 30, 2008, within the April term of court, the state filed a “MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND MODIFY SENTENCE,” requesting that Tyson be prohibited from living near the victims of the burglaries for the duration of his sentence. As grounds for the motion, the state alleged that at the time of the burglaries, Tyson was living with his grandmother at a residence “very near” to the victims. The state further alleged that the victims feared Tyson’s return to the neighborhood and that they expected “retaliation” or “at least harassment” from the defendant upon his release.
On January 29, 2009, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion during which the court heard evidence from the “victims and concerned citizens in the neighborhood” where the burglaries occurred. The trial court thereafter, in February 2009, during the October term of court, entered orders modifying the probated portion of Tyson’s sentence by imposing a condition banishing him from the subdivision where the burglaries occurred.
1. Tyson contends that the trial court lacked the authority to modify his sentence because the order was not entered during the same term of court in which the original sentence had been rendered. In support of his argument, Tyson relies on the oft-cited principle that, “[a] trial court’s authority to vacate or modify a sentence ends when the term of court in which the judgment was entered expires.” (Footnote omitted.)
King v. State,
Tyson’s argument fails for two distinct reasons, both of which are fatal to his claim. First, although the trial court’s order modifying his probated sentence was not entered until the subsequent term of court, the state filed its motion to modify the sentence within the April 2008 term, the same term in which the sentence was originally rendered. “Georgia courts have long held that while a trial judge loses the inherent right to modify a judgment after the term expires, a motion made during the term serves to extend the power to modify.” (Citation omitted.)
Porterfield v. State,
*297
Second, the principle relied on by Tyson and set forth in
King
precludes the modification of the confinement portion of a defendant’s sentence after the term of court in which it is rendered has expired. See
State v. Stulb,
2. Tyson further argues that the trial court’s modification banishing him from the subdivision where the burglaries occurred constituted an unlawful increase in his sentence. It is well established in Georgia jurisprudence that “the sentencing court may not increase a sentence once the defendant begins serving it without violating the prohibition against double jeopardy in both the Georgia and Federal constitutions.”
Harris v. State,
While we agree with Tyson’s legal premise, it is inapplicable to this case. The Georgia Legislature has expressly provided that banishment, used reasonably within the trial court’s discretion, is a valid term and condition of probation. See OCGA § 42-8-35 (6) (A);
Terry v. Hamrick,
The trial court’s original sentencing order included as a special condition of probation that Tyson was to avoid all contact with the burglary victims, each of whom lived in the subdivision at issue. To the extent that the modified sentence simply clarified the scope of that special condition, it was contemplated within the terms of the original sentence. See OCGA § 42-8-34 (g);
Gould,
Moreover, and significantly, the record does not contain a transcript of the hearing during which the trial court considered the state’s motion to reconsider and modify sentence, nor does it contain any information about Tyson’s residential history and/or Tyson’s history with the victims or other residents in the subdivison. The banishment provision, however, was reasonable, narrow in scope, and included only the subdivision in which the victims resided. The Supreme Court of Georgia has stated that, under certain circumstances, banishment serves valid rehabilitative purposes. See
Terry,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
Lee County has two terms of court, an April term and an October term. OCGA § 15-6-3 (36) (A).