Title: State v. Guillory

State: louisiana

Issuer: Louisiana Supreme Court

Document:

363 So. 2d 511 (1978) STATE of Louisiana v. Wilman E. GUILLORY, Jr. Nos. 61943, 61944. Supreme Court of Louisiana. October 9, 1978. Jack Rogers, Lake Charles, for defendant-relator. William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frank T. Salter, Jr., Dist. Atty., Nick Pizzolatto, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-respondent. DIXON, Justice. Wilman E. Guillory, Jr. was charged in two separate bills of information with simple burglary, in violation of R.S. 14:62, and theft, in violation of R.S. 14:67. On November 12, 1974 he pleaded guilty to both charges and was sentenced to concurrent sentences of two years at hard labor on the burglary charge and one year at hard labor on the theft charge. Execution of the sentences was suspended and the defendant was placed on supervised probation for a period of two years to end on November 12, 1976. C.Cr.P. 893. On October 19, 1976 Guillory was charged with violating the conditions of his probation and was brought before the court for a violation hearing pursuant to Articles 899 and 900 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the hearing defendant stipulated that the probation officer's report was true and admitted having violated the terms and conditions of his probation. The court modified the conditions of the defendant's probation and extended the probation term for an additional two years. On January 24, 1978 defendant was brought before the district court as a probation violator. Guillory admitted the violation, and the district court subsequently revoked his probation and committed defendant to serve the original sentence imposed. Defendant's application to this court under our supervisory jurisdiction was granted, 359 So. 2d 633 (La.1978). The defendant asserts one assignment of error to vacate the revocation of probation and the imposition of the prison sentence. Defendant's contention is that the trial court is not authorized to extend the period of probation beyond that period initially established. Therefore, according to Guillory's position, his probation expired on November 12, 1976, and the revocation hearing held on January 24, 1978 was without effect because it occurred after the original period of probation expired. Under the terms of Article 900 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a trial judge who discovers a violation of a condition of probation may take one of several steps to rectify the situation: Clearly subsections (1) and (2), which concern reprimands and intensified supervision, cannot be relied upon by the State as authority to extend a period of probation. Under subsection (4) the trial court is authorized to impose sentence on the probation violator, but only if the imposition of the sentence, and not its execution as in the instant case, was suspended by the trial court. Therefore the issue becomes whether the extension of the probation period by two additional years can be considered an "additional condition" added to the probation within the purview of subsection (3). The provisions of Article 895 detail the types of conditions which can be imposed on probation: In Article 895, the word "condition" appears to relate to stipulations exacted from the probationer concerning his conduct during the probationary period; no reference is made to an extension of any period of time as a condition of probation. Moreover, the silence of Article 895 on this matter has added relevance in light of the provisions of Article 893 which state in pertinent part: "The period of probation shall be specified and shall not be less than one year nor more than five years." (Emphasis added). The scheme of the legislature in this area becomes clear. Probation, if granted, must be for a specified time but may have any condition imposed upon it, with Article 895 as a guide of what sorts of conditions are desirable. If the defendant is found to have violated his probation, the trial court may reprimand him, increase the supervision of his probation, revoke his probation, or place additional conditions upon *513 it. However, the trial court may not extend the period of probation; that action is not authorized as a sanction for probation violation under Article 900 and is, in fact, implicitly forbidden by Article 893 which requires the probation period to be specified and therefore not subject to change. The State has argued in brief that to deny this power to the trial judge will result in a great loss of flexibility and in routine revocation of probation in cases such as this one, where the defendant has only a short time left of his probation to serve. On the other hand, we cannot conclude that the legislature did not intentionally withhold the grant of such "flexible" power because of a potential for abuse. Flexibility is provided by giving the judge the power to suspend the imposition of sentence during probation. Louisiana has adopted a scheme of determinate sentencing; under the proposal of the prosecution, the power to extend the period of probation could keep an offender under probation forever, without his having committed another offensea result clearly not intended by the code. Accordingly, the sentence of the defendant is vacated and the case remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.