Davenport v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Davenport v. State

271 S.E.2d 34, 155 Ga. App. 388, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2592

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 16, 1980

Docket60208

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 271 S.E.2d 34 (Davenport v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davenport v. State, 271 S.E.2d 34, 155 Ga. App. 388, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2592 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Judge.

Marque Pasadena Davenport on November 8, 1976, entered pleas of guilty to charges of armed robbery and burglary. He was sentenced to ten years in the penitentiary for each crime, the last two years on probation, the two sentences to be served concurrently. After sentence review pursuant to Code Ann. § 27-2511.1, the panel reduced the sentence to “ten years (six years to be served in custody followed by four years on probation),” with the same conditions of probation. Davenport was released early for “good time” computed on the six years in custody and on March 11,1980, was charged with a violation of probation. After a hearing, the trial judge ordered that the four years probation, as imposed by the sentence review panel, be revoked and served in the penitentiary. Davenport appeals the probation revocation on the ground that the review panel exceeded the lawful authority of Code Ann. § 27-2511.1 by “increasing the term of years to be served on probation from two years to four years.” Held:

Davenport contends that because Code Ann. § 27-2511.1 (c) gives the review panel the authority to reduce or refuse to reduce the sentence originally imposed, but not to reduce any sentence to probation or to suspend any sentence, the statute does not contemplate an increase of the original probationary period. Thus, it is urged, the order of the review panel was invalid and appellant can [389]*389only be required upon revocation of his probation to serve the original probated sentence of two years. While we applaud the ingenuity of the argument, we note that no complaint was made to extension of the probation until it was violated by appellant and revoked. It is true that a total conversion of a prison sentence to probation is prohibited, but a reasonable reading of both the statute and the instant order connotes that a partial conversion of a prison sentence to probation is permitted as a method of reducing the sentence originally imposed. Davenport was in fact released from prison earlier because of this “modification.” Thus, we hold that the statutory provisions control here and under its own terms, “the reduction of a sentence, or the refusal to reduce a sentence, by the panel shall not be reviewable.” Code § 27-2511.1 (d).

Submitted July 1, 1980 Decided July 16, 1980. Edward Lang, for appellant. Randall Peek, District Attorney, Dave Wood, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Banke, Judge.

Marque Pasadena Davenport on November 8, 1976, entered pleas of guilty to charges of armed robbery and burglary. He was sentenced to ten years in the penitentiary for each crime, the last two years on probation, the two sentences to be served concurrently. After sentence review pursuant to Code Ann. § 27-2511.1, the panel reduced the sentence to “ten years (six years to be served in custody followed by four years on probation),” with the same conditions of probation. Davenport was released early for “good time” computed on the six years in custody and on March 11,1980, was charged with a violation of probation. After a hearing, the trial judge ordered that the four years probation, as imposed by the sentence review panel, be revoked and served in the penitentiary. Davenport appeals the probation revocation on the ground that the review panel exceeded the lawful authority of Code Ann. § 27-2511.1 by “increasing the term of years to be served on probation from two years to four years.” Held:

Davenport contends that because Code Ann. § 27-2511.1 (c) gives the review panel the authority to reduce or refuse to reduce the sentence originally imposed, but not to reduce any sentence to probation or to suspend any sentence, the statute does not contemplate an increase of the original probationary period. Thus, it is urged, the order of the review panel was invalid and appellant can [389]*389only be required upon revocation of his probation to serve the original probated sentence of two years. While we applaud the ingenuity of the argument, we note that no complaint was made to extension of the probation until it was violated by appellant and revoked. It is true that a total conversion of a prison sentence to probation is prohibited, but a reasonable reading of both the statute and the instant order connotes that a partial conversion of a prison sentence to probation is permitted as a method of reducing the sentence originally imposed. Davenport was in fact released from prison earlier because of this “modification.” Thus, we hold that the statutory provisions control here and under its own terms, “the reduction of a sentence, or the refusal to reduce a sentence, by the panel shall not be reviewable.” Code § 27-2511.1 (d).

Submitted July 1, 1980 Decided July 16, 1980. Edward Lang, for appellant. Randall Peek, District Attorney, Dave Wood, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 S.E.2d 34, 155 Ga. App. 388, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davenport-v-state-gactapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack