Hutchins v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hutchins v. State

533 S.E.2d 107, 243 Ga. App. 261, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 1915, 2000 Ga. App. LEXIS 441

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 29, 2000

DocketA99A2355

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 533 S.E.2d 107 (Hutchins 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

Hutchins v. State, 533 S.E.2d 107, 243 Ga. App. 261, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 1915, 2000 Ga. App. LEXIS 441 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinions

Miller, Judge.

Having pled guilty to driving under the influence, James Hutch-ins was sentenced to 12 months in the county jail, “[pjrovided, that after the service of 180 days in confinement, the balance shall be probated.” The sheriff awarded him 60 days credit for good time and released him following 120 days confinement. After serving probation for 185 days, Hutchins moved to have his sentence terminated, which the court denied on the ground that the 60 days of “good-time” credit had to be served on probation. The question on appeal is whether a sentence which orders a defendant to serve part of the sentence in jail with the balance probated can require that “good-time” credit resulting in an early release from confinement be served on probation. We hold it cannot and reverse.

1. The State’s complaints about the imprecise wording of Hutch-ins’ enumeration of error are without merit.¹ The enumeration adequately describes the ruling appealed.

2. Johns v. State² is dispositive. The defendant in Johns was sentenced to ten years (two to serve, eight on probation). The judge further ordered that any “good-time” credit be served on probation. Holding this was improper, Johns referred to former Code Ann. § 77-320.1 (c), which directed that a prisoner be released at the expiration of his sentence less the time earned as “earned time” allowance.³ Johns explained that a sentence of confinement is fully served at the time the custodian releases the prisoner.⁴ “Any attempt by a court to impose its will over the Executive Department as to what constitutes service of a period of confinement would be a nullity and constitute an exercise of power granted exclusively to the Executive. [Cits.]”⁵ Beyond violating the Georgia Constitution, Johns held that imposing additional probation as a result of an early release date contravened the intent of the statutory language directing that “earned time” credit be deducted from a prisoner’s sentence.⁶

[262]*262OCGA § 42-4-7 (b) (3) employs almost identical language: “An inmate sentenced to confinement as a county inmate shall be released at the expiration of his or her sentence less the time deducted for good-time allowances.”⁷ Based on Johns, we hold that this language prohibits a judge from imposing probation on any time by which confinement is shortened due to good-time credit. The legal consequence of that credit is that the related portion of the original sentence has been served. Because our holding is based on this statute, the State’s attempt to distinguish the separation of powers clause of the Georgia Constitution⁸ is moot.

3. In the same ruling the court stated that the start date of the sentence was July 7, 1998. But since the State stipulated that as of October 10, 1998, Hutchins had served 120 days of the 180 days sentenced, the start date necessarily was no later than June 12, 1998. The period of confinement was served as of October 10, and the 185 days of lawful probation expired on April 13,1999, the day before the filing of Hutchins’ motion to terminate. Thus, the motion to terminate should have been granted.

Judgment reversed.

Pope, P. J., Blackburn, P. J., Ruffin and Eldridge, JJ, concur. Andrews, P. J., and Smith, J., dissent.

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

Miller, Judge.

Having pled guilty to driving under the influence, James Hutch-ins was sentenced to 12 months in the county jail, “[pjrovided, that after the service of 180 days in confinement, the balance shall be probated.” The sheriff awarded him 60 days credit for good time and released him following 120 days confinement. After serving probation for 185 days, Hutchins moved to have his sentence terminated, which the court denied on the ground that the 60 days of “good-time” credit had to be served on probation. The question on appeal is whether a sentence which orders a defendant to serve part of the sentence in jail with the balance probated can require that “good-time” credit resulting in an early release from confinement be served on probation. We hold it cannot and reverse.

1. The State’s complaints about the imprecise wording of Hutch-ins’ enumeration of error are without merit.¹ The enumeration adequately describes the ruling appealed.

2. Johns v. State² is dispositive. The defendant in Johns was sentenced to ten years (two to serve, eight on probation). The judge further ordered that any “good-time” credit be served on probation. Holding this was improper, Johns referred to former Code Ann. § 77-320.1 (c), which directed that a prisoner be released at the expiration of his sentence less the time earned as “earned time” allowance.³ Johns explained that a sentence of confinement is fully served at the time the custodian releases the prisoner.⁴ “Any attempt by a court to impose its will over the Executive Department as to what constitutes service of a period of confinement would be a nullity and constitute an exercise of power granted exclusively to the Executive. [Cits.]”⁵ Beyond violating the Georgia Constitution, Johns held that imposing additional probation as a result of an early release date contravened the intent of the statutory language directing that “earned time” credit be deducted from a prisoner’s sentence.⁶

[262]*262OCGA § 42-4-7 (b) (3) employs almost identical language: “An inmate sentenced to confinement as a county inmate shall be released at the expiration of his or her sentence less the time deducted for good-time allowances.”⁷ Based on Johns, we hold that this language prohibits a judge from imposing probation on any time by which confinement is shortened due to good-time credit. The legal consequence of that credit is that the related portion of the original sentence has been served. Because our holding is based on this statute, the State’s attempt to distinguish the separation of powers clause of the Georgia Constitution⁸ is moot.

3. In the same ruling the court stated that the start date of the sentence was July 7, 1998. But since the State stipulated that as of October 10, 1998, Hutchins had served 120 days of the 180 days sentenced, the start date necessarily was no later than June 12, 1998. The period of confinement was served as of October 10, and the 185 days of lawful probation expired on April 13,1999, the day before the filing of Hutchins’ motion to terminate. Thus, the motion to terminate should have been granted.

Judgment reversed.

Pope, P. J., Blackburn, P. J., Ruffin and Eldridge, JJ, concur. Andrews, P. J., and Smith, J., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

533 S.E.2d 107, 243 Ga. App. 261, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 1915, 2000 Ga. App. LEXIS 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutchins-v-state-gactapp-2000.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack