Thompson v. State

• Decision Date: 14 December 2011
• Docket Number: No. A11A1808.,A11A1808.
• Citation: 313 Ga.App. 294,721 S.E.2d 106,11 FCDR 3508
• Parties: THOMPSON v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

11 FCDR 3508

313 Ga.App. 294

721 S.E.2d 106

THOMPSON

v.The STATE.

No. A11A1808.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Nov. 2, 2011.Reconsideration Denied Dec. 14, 2011.

Clarke & Towne, Jessica Ruth Towne, Lawrenceville, for appellant.

Daniel J. Porter, Dist. Atty., James Vaughan Branch, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

McFADDEN, Judge.

We granted David Garland Thompson's application for discretionary review of the superior court's order revoking his probation.Thompson argues that his probated sentence had already run when the state petitioned to revoke it.But Thompson had violated conditions of his probation.He has not shown that the court erred in finding that his sentence was tolled.Accordingly, we affirm.

In April 2001, Thompson was convicted of possession of methamphetamine and sentenced to seven years' confinement, six of which were to be served on probation.On October 29, 2002, the superior court issued a warrant for Thompson's arrest for violating certain conditions of his probation, including the condition that he report to his probation supervisor.The warrant instructed the sheriff or another law enforcement official to “take the body” of Thompson, and to keep him until he may “be returned to this Court.”On February 28, 2003, a sheriff's deputy signed the following statement of “non est inventus” on the back of the warrant: “The undersigned officer hereby certifies that a thorough and diligent search for the probationer listed in this warrant has been made at but not limited to places of abode, known places of frequencies, and others and that His/Her whereabouts are unknown and cannot be located.”On March 27, 2003, the trial court entered an order tolling the running of Thompson's probated sentence.On the order was a probation officer's signed but unsworn statement that the October 2002 warrant had not been served because Thompson could not be located.

In December 2010, Thompson was arrested for committing several new offenses, and on December 27, 2010, the state petitioned to revoke his probation.Although Thompson admitted to the state's allegations that he violated the terms and conditions of his probation, including having failed to report to his probation officer since 2002, he opposed the state's petition on the ground that his probated sentence should not have been tolled because the statutory requirements for tolling had not been met.Absent tolling, Thompson's sentence would have run in 2008, before the state brought the revocation petition.The superior court, however, held that Thompson's sentence had been tolled by the signed non est inventus statement on the October 2002 arrest warrant, which the court further held had been returned on the date the deputy sheriff signed it, February 28, 2003.Accordingly, the court revoked Thompson's probation.

OCGA § 42–8–36 governs the tolling of a probated sentence when the probationer cannot be located.The version of that Code section in effect in 2003, when the superior court found the tolling had begun, provided two bases upon which a probated sentence could be tolled.

OCGA § 42–8–36(a)(2)(2002) allowed the tolling of a probated sentence if the probation supervisor submitted an affidavit to the court stating that a probationer had absconded and could not be found, effective on the date the affidavit was submitted.But in this case the probation officer's signed statement that Thompson could not be located was unsworn, so it did not constitute an affidavit and did not satisfy the requirement of OCGA § 42–8–36(a)(2)(2002).SeeWilson v. State,292 Ga.App. 540, 544, 664 S.E.2d 890(2008).See generallySambor v. Kelley,271 Ga. 133, 133–134(1), 518 S.E.2d 120(1999)(an affidavit is a statement under oath taken before a person having the authority to administer such oath).

Alternatively, under OCGA § 42–8–36(a)(1)(2002), the running of a probated sentence was automatically tolled by

[t]he failure of a probationer to report to his probation supervisor as directed or a return of non est inventus or other return to a warrant, for the violation of the terms and conditions of probation, that the probationer [could not] be found in the county that appear[ed] from the records of the probation supervisor to be the probationer's county of residence.

OCGA § 42–8–36(a)(1)(2002) further provided: “The effective date of the tolling of the sentence shall be the date that the officer returns the warrant showing non est inventus.Any officer authorized by law to issue or serve warrants may return the warrant for the absconded probationer showing non est inventus.”(OCGA § 42–8–36(a) was later amended, effective July 1, 2010, to remove the provision that the effective date of the tolling was the...