Johnson v. State
| Citation | 214 Ga. 818,108 S.E.2d 313 |
| Decision Date | 09 April 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 20390,20390 |
| Parties | William B. JOHNSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
Hollis Fort, Jr., Americus, for plaintiff in error.
Claude N. Morris, Sol., Americus, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
On January 13, 1958, the defendant pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor accusation charging him with carrying a concealed weapon in count 1, and carrying a pistol without a license in count 2. He was then sentenced to six months on each count, it being stipulated that the six-month sentence of count 2 was to follow that of count 1. On October 30, 1958, the defendant was arrested on a warrant based on affidavits charging him with violating the third condition of the suspended sentence in count 2, where it is stipulated: 'He must not violate any laws of the State of Georgia.' The warrant and affidavits charged the defendant with carrying a concealed weapon and carrying a pistol without a license in Lee County and with speeding in Sumter County. The defendant excepts to the overruling of his demurrer attacking the constitutionality of the probation act of 1956 (Ga.L.1956, pp. 27, 32; Code, Ann., § 27-2713), and to the order revoking his probation. He contends that section 12 of the probation act is violative of article 1, section 1, paragraph 5 of the Constitution of Georgia (Code § 2-105), because it makes no provision for a trial by jury in the determination of whether or not the conditions of a probation order have been breached. Held:
The defendant's constitutional right to a trial by jury was not violated by the revocation of his probation, when, after a hearing, the trial judge decided that he had violated the terms of the order granting probation. Although the constitutionality of the probation act of 1956, supra, has not before been ruled upon by this court, the probation act of 1913 (Ga.L.1913, pp. 112, 114), the provisions of which in respect to revocation are substantially the same as those in the act in question, was held to be constitutional in Williams v. State, 162 Ga. 327(1)(d), 133 S.E. 843, where it is stated: 'Nor is the aforesaid act unconstitutional because in violation of art. 6, § 18, par. 1, of the Constitution of Georgia, because no provision is made for a trial by jury upon the hearing had to determine whether the parole shall be revoked.' Probation is granted as a privilege, and not as a matter of right; and the revocation of the probation is punishment for the crime for which the defendant was convicted in the first instance. According to the terms of the probation, the privilege shall be terminated upon breach of the conditions of the probation order. Whether or not these conditions have been breached shall be determined by the court, in whose discretion the probation was granted. At the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dickerson v. State
...for appellee. BELL, Chief Judge. This appeal from a revocation of probation is controlled adversely to the appellant by Johnson v. State, 214 Ga. 818, 108 S.E.2d 313 and by many cases which have applied Johnson such as Sellers v. State, 107 Ga.App. 516, 130 S.E.2d 790; Scott v. State, 131 G......
-
Sellers v. State
...revocation of the probation is punishment for the crime for which the defendant was convicted in the first instance.' Johnson v. State, 214 Ga. 818, 819, 108 S.E.2d 313; Cross v. Huff, 208 Ga. 392, 396, 67 S.E.2d 124. Probation of sentence '* * * comes as an act of grace to one convicted of......
-
The State v. Thackston.
...revocation hearing does not qualify as a trial. See Meadows v. Settles, 274 Ga. 858, 859(2), 561 S.E.2d 105 (2002); Johnson v. State, 214 Ga. 818, 819, 108 S.E.2d 313 (1959); Howard v. State, 168 Ga.App. 143, 144(2), 308 S.E.2d 424 (1983). To hold otherwise would require us to ignore the pl......
-
Hall v. Bostic
...380; Davis v. Parker (D.C.Del.1968) 293 F.Supp. 1388, 1394; State v. Everett (1913) 164 N.C. 399, 79 S.E. 274, 277; Johnson v. State (1959) 214 Ga. 818, 108 S.E.2d 313, 314.6 Anglin v. Johnston, supra, 504 F.2d at 1168; Kaplan v. Hecht, supra, 24 F.2d at 665.7 Thomas v. United States (10th ......