Edge v. State

Decision Date20 October 1982
Docket NumberNo. 64594,64594
Citation164 Ga.App. 52,296 S.E.2d 368
PartiesEDGE v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

John Knight, Albany, for appellant.

Hobart Hind, Dist. Atty., John W. Hogg, Asst. Dist. Atty., Albany, for appellee.

McMURRAY, Presiding Judge.

Defendant pleaded guilty to a burglary charge in 1980 and he was sentenced to ten years, three to serve and seven on probation. His sentence was commuted in April 1981 because of prison overcrowding. The order of commutation did "not affect the probated portion of [his] sentences or fines." In April 1982 the state filed a petition for revocation of his probation on the grounds that he allegedly committed another burglary and also that he failed to make the restitution ordered by the court in the previous case. After a hearing, the trial court found that defendant committed the alleged burglary and failed to pay the restitution and therefore it ordered defendant's probated sentence revoked. Held:

1. Defendant first contends he was denied due process of law because the petition for revocation of probation did not allege specific violations of the probation conditions. The petition included the following paragraph: "That the Defendant has violated the following terms and conditions of probation in the following particulars # 1: Do not violate the criminal laws of any governmental unit or city ordinance. On March 17, 1982 in Dougherty County, Georgia, he committed the offense of Burglary when he without authority and with intent to commit theft or felony therein, entered Dervan Cartage Company at 925 N. Maple Street. [# 2] Failure to pay restitution as ordered by the Court, in amendment dated April 9, 1981. He has never made a payment." We hold that this is sufficient specificity to satisfy the due process requirement. See generally Mingo v. State, 155 Ga.App. 284, 286-287(2), 270 S.E.2d 700.

2. Defendant's second contention is that the trial court erred in considering evidence of crimes of which he was not accused. The state offered evidence, over defendant's objection, that three separate businesses were located at 925 N. Maple Street, adjoining and under the same roof, and each had been burglarized on March 17, 1982. Defendant argues that he was charged only with burglarizing Dervan Cartage Company and therefore the court should not have allowed and considered evidence pertaining to the burglary of the other two businesses.

A similar challenge was raised in the case of Horton v. State, 122 Ga.App. 106, 107, 176 S.E.2d 287. In that case, the defendant was charged with violating his conditions of probation in that he possessed and sold illegal whiskey and operated a gambling house. The state produced slight evidence of these violations and also evidence that defendant conducted a lottery in his home as well. This court stated that the evidence pertaining to the lottery should not have been considered because the state failed to notify the defendant of the charge but upheld the revocation of probation because there was "some evidence that defendant violated the conditions of his probation as charged."

In the case sub judice, the state produced evidence that a burglar had entered a window of Dervan Cartage Company, burglarized it and the other two businesses and that defendant was found shortly thereafter and nearby in possession of the goods taken (including those from Dervan) without a reasonable explanation. Applying Horton v. State, 122 Ga.App. 106, 176 S.E.2d 287, supra, to this set of facts, we find no reversible error.

3. Defendant next contends that the court's findings and conclusions are not supported by the evidence. Only slight evidence is required to support a revocation of probation. See Mingo v. State, 155 Ga.App. 284, 270 S.E.2d 700, supra; Evans v. State, 153 Ga.App. 764, 266 S.E.2d 545; Patat v. State, 142 Ga.App. 398, 236 S.E.2d 143; Hubbard v. State, 139 Ga.App. 336, 228 S.E.2d 362; Horton v. State, 122 Ga.App. 106, 176 S.E.2d 287, supra. Under this standard we find that the state met its burden (see Division 2, supra) and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling on the evidence.

4. Defendant's final contention is that it was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Wolcott v. State, No. S04A1590, S04A1591.
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • October 25, 2004
    ...were sufficient to comply with due process requirements. Hayes v. State, 168 Ga.App. 94(1), 308 S.E.2d 227 (1983); Edge v. State, 164 Ga.App. 52(1), 296 S.E.2d 368 (1982); Hubbard v. State, 139 Ga.App. 336(1), 228 S.E.2d 362 Moreover, "[t]he inadequacy of a petition is not necessarily a bas......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT