THI RD DI VI SI ON

DOYLE, P. J.

, REESE and BROWN, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

D E A D LIN E S A R E N O LO N G E R TO LLE D IN T

H I S

C O U R T. A LL FILIN G S M U ST B E S U B M I TTE D WITH IN

TH E TIM E S S E T B Y

O U R C O U R T R U LE S

.

Januar y 7, 2022



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 1 A1 35 2 . GILES v . THE STATE.

D O Y LE , Pres i d i n g J u d g e.

Di l l o n Gi l es ap peal s fro m an o rd er d e n yi n g h i s m o t io n to d is ch arg e a fi rs t

o ffen d er o ffen s e fo l l o w i n g t h e en d o f h i s t er m o f p ro b at i o n fo r t h at o ffen s e. He

arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y n o t d i s ch arg i n g hi m b ecau s e hi s term o f p ro b at i o n

h ad en d ed -an d h e h ad n o t ot h erwi s e b een ad ju d i cat ed g u i l ty o f t h e u n d erl y i ng o ffen s e

d u ri n g t h e p en den cy o f hi s fi rs t -o ffen d er sen t en ce. Becau s e t h e ap p l i cab le st at u t o ry

s ch em e req u i res t h at s uch a d efen dan t b e d i s ch arg ed , we ag ree an d rev ers e.

Th e reco rd i s un d i s p u t ed an d s h ows t h at i n 2 00 7

, Gi l es en t ered a n eg o t i at ed

g u i l t y p l ea t o on e co u n t o f s t at ut o ry rap e fo r hav i n g s ex wi t h a t hi rt een -y ear-o l d gi rl

wh i le he was s ev en t een

. In J u n e 2 0 0 7

, t he t ri al c o u r t en t ered an o rd er s en t en ci n gGi l es t o t en y ears o f pro b at i o n u n d er t h e Fi rs t Offen d er A ct

. 1 In t h at o rd er, t h e t ri al

co u rt n o t ed t h at n o ad

ju d i cat io n o f g u i l t was b ei n g en t ered at t h at t i m e.

In M ay 20 1 2 , aft er Gi l es fai l ed t o reg i s t er as a s ex o ffen d er, 2 t h e St at e fi l ed a

p et i t i o n t o m o d i fy o r rev ok e Gi l es ’ s p ro b at i o n

. Fo ll o wi n g a h eari n g, t h e t ri al c o u rt

en t ere d an ord er i n J u ne 2 0 1 2 rev o k i n g h i s pro b at i o n (ru n n i n g t h e rem ai n d er

co n cu rren t wi t h t h e n ew fai l u re-t o -reg i s ter offen se) an d o rd eri ng h i m t o s erv e 1 5 0

-

1 8 0 d ay s i n a p ro b at io n d et en t i o n cen t er. Th e o rd er was s i l en t as t o an ad ju d i cat i o n

o f g u il t o n t h e s tat u t o ry

rap e o ffen s e.

In J u n e 20 1 3

, t h e St at e ag ai n fi l ed a p et i t i o n fo r m o d ifi cat i o n o r rev o cat i o n o f

Gi l es ’ s p r o b a t i o n b as ed o n h i s fai l u re t o reg i s ter as a sex o ffen d er an d b ecau s e h e

m o ved h is res i d en ce wi t h o u t p erm i s s i on fro m h i s p ro b at i o n o f fi cer. Fo l l o wi n g a

1 OCGA § 4 2 -8 -6 0 (2 0 0 7 ) et s eq

. Bo t h Gi l es an d th e St at e co rrect l y rel y o n t h e

s t a t u t o ry s ch em e i n effect at th e t i m e o f Gi les ’ s s en t en ci n g

. See g en eral l y Pi t t s v

. S t a t e

, 3 5 7 Ga. Ap p

. 2 9 9

, 30 2 (2 ) (8 5 0 SE2 d 4 8 6 ) (2 0 2 0) (“ [T] h e s et t l ed ru l e fo r t h e

co n st ru ct i o n o f s t at u t es i s no t t o g i v e t h em a ret ro sp ec t i v e o p erat io n

, u n l es s t h e

l a n g u ag e s o i m

perat i v el y req u i res

. ”), qu o t i n g H a r d i n v. S t a te

, 3 44 Ga. Ap p

. 3 7 8

, 3 8 8 -3 8 9 (2 ) (8 1 0 SE2 d 6 0 2 ) (2 0 1 8 ).

2 See g en eral l y O CGA § 4 2 -1 -1 2 (a) (8 ) (2 0 0 7 ) (“ A defen d an t wh o i s

d i s ch arg ed wi t h o u t ad

ju di cat i o n o f g u i l t an d wh o i s n ot co n s id ered to h av e a cri m i n al

co n vi ct i o n p u rs u an t t o Art i cl e 3 o f Ch ap t er 8 o f t h i s t i t l e, rel at i n g t o fi rs t o ffen d ers

,

s h al l b e s u b

ject t o t h e [s e x o f

fen d er] reg i s trat i o n req ui rem en t s o f t h is Co d e s ect i o n

fo r t h e p eri o d o f t i m e p ri or t o th e d efen d an t ’ s di s ch arg e aft er co m p l et i o n o f h i s o r h er

s en t en ce o r u p o n t h e d efen d an t b ei n g ad ju d i cat ed g u i lt y .”).

2h eari n g

, i n J u l y 2 0 1 3 t h e t ri al co u rt rev o k ed h i s p ro b at i o n i n acco rd an ce w i th OCGA

§ 4 2 -8 -3 8, 3 o rd eri ng t h at Gi l es s erv e t h e rem ai n i n g t h ree y ears

, ei gh t m on t h s

, an d s ix

d a y s i n p ri s o n

. Ag ai n

, t h e rev o cat i o n ord er was s i l en t as t o Gi l es ’ s fi rs t -o ffen d er

s t at u s, an d i t d i d n o t en t er an ad ju d i cat io n o f g u i l t as t o t h e s t at ut o ry rap e ch arg e.

In No vem

b er 2 0 2 0, Gi l es fi l ed a p ro s e “ M o t i o n t o Term i nat e Fi rs t Offen d er

Pro b at i o n ,” s t at i n g th at h e was s t i l l b ei ng req u i red t o rep o rt t o p ro b at io n d es p i t e t h e

t erm i n at i o n o f h i s s en t en ce i n J an u ary 2 0 1 9. At a h eari n g o n t h e m o t i o n, t h e St at e

ag reed t h at , g i ven t h e pas sag e of t im e, t h e s en t en ce h ad b een s erv ed i n fu l l, an d t h e

co u rt p o s ed t h e qu es t i o n w h et h er Gi l es w as en t i tl ed t o d i sch arg e fo l lo wi n g h i s fi rs t

o ffen d er s en t en ce wi t h n o ad ju d i cat i o n o f g u il t

. Aft er fu rt h er co l lo q uy w i t h t h e St at e,

t h e t ri al co u rt t oo k t h e m at t er u n d er ad v i s em en t

. Th ereaft er, t h e t ri al co urt en t ered an

o rd er den y i n g Gi l es ’ s m o t i o n

, s p eci fi cal l y ru l i n g t h at Gi l es was n o t en t i t l ed to

d i s ch arg e b ecau se h i s fi rs t o ffen d er p ro b at i o n was rev o k ed t wi ce, an d h e was ch arg ed

3 OCGA § 4 2 -8 -3 8 (c) (2 0 1 3 ) p r o vi d es

, i n rel ev an t part

, t h at wh en a

p ro b at i o n er v i o l at es h i s p ro b at io n

, “ [a] ft er [a] h eari ng

, t he co u rt m ay rev ok e, m o d i fy

,

o r co nt i n u e t h e p ro b at i on

. If t h e p ro b a t i o n i s rev o k ed

, t h e co u rt m ay o rd er t h e

ex ecu t i o n o f t h e s en t en ce o ri g i n al l y i m po s ed o r o f an y p o rt i o n t h ereo f.”

3wi t h o t h er cri m es (t wi ce fai l i n g t o reg i s ter as a s ex o ffen d er) d u ri ng h i s fi rs t o ffen d er

p ro b at i o n ary

p eri o d

. 4 Gi les n o w ap p eal s

.

Gi l es co n t en d s t h at h e i s en t i t l e d t o d i s ch arg e u n d er t h e Fi rs t Offen d er Act

b ecau s e h i s p ro b at i o n p eri o d fo r t h e o ffen se h a s e x p i r ed

, an d h e h as n o t b een

ad ju d i cat ed g u i l t y

o f t he fi rs t -o ffen d er s t at u t o ry rap e o ffen s e. W e ag ree.

Gi l es rel i es o n t h e lan g u ag e i n OCGA § 4 2 -8 -6 2 (a) (2 0 0 7 ), wh i ch p ro v i d es :

“ Up o n fu l fi l l m en t o f th e t erm s o f pro b at i on

, u p o n rel eas e by th e co u rt pri o r t o t h e

t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p eri o d t h ereo f, or u p o n r el ea s e f

r o m co n f i n emen t

, t h e d ef en d a nt

s h a l l b e d i s ch a r

ged wi t h o u t co u r t a dj u d ica t io n o f g u i l t .” 5 Th erefo re, th ere are t h ree

c o n d i t io n s u n der wh i ch a d efen d an t “ s h al l ” be d i sch arg ed

, an y o n e of wh i c h i s

s u ffi ci en t : 6 fu l fi l l m en t o f t h e t erm s o f p ro b at i o n

, rel eas e p ri o r t o t h e p ro b at i o n p eri o d,

o r rel eas e fro m co n fi n em en t

. In t h i s co nt ex t

, t h e w o rd “ s hal l ” i s “ a wo rd o f

4 Th e t ri al co u rt ’ s ord er referen ced a 2 0 09 g u i l t y p l ea t o cri m i n al d am ag e to

p ro p ert y res ul ti n g i n a fi v e-y ear p ro b at i o n s en t en ce, b ut t h e reco rd d o es no t r e fl ect

t h a t t h e 2 0 0 9 gu i l t y p l ea was a bas i s fo r an y rev o cat i on wi t h res p ect t o t h e fi rs t

o ffen d er s t at u t ory

rap e o ffen se at i s s u e i n t h i s cas e.

5 (Em p h as i s s u p pl i ed .)

6 See Gea r i n g er v. Le e

, 2 6 6 Ga. 1 6 7

, 16 9 (2 ) (4 6 5 SE2 d 44 0 ) (1 9 9 6 ) (“ Th e

n at u r a l m ean in g o f ‘ o r,’ wh ere u s ed as a co nn ect i v e, is ‘ t o m ark an al t ern at i v e an d

p res en t ch o i ce, im

p l y i n g an el ect io n t o d o o n e o f t wo t h i n g s.’ ”), q u ot i n g Ga

. Pa p er

S t o ck Co . v. S t a t e Ta x Bd

. , 1 7 4 Ga. 8 1 6

, 8 1 9 (1 6 4 SE 1 9 7 ) (1 9 3 2).

4co m

m an d ,” an d d i sch arg e i s es s en t i al l y an au t o m at i c r e s u l t b y o p erat i o n o f t h e

s t at u te. 7

It i s u n d is p ut ed t h at Gi l es ’ s 1 0 -y ear t erm o f p ro b at i on fo r t he 2 0 0 7 st at u t o ry

rap e o ffen s e h a d e x pi red b y 2 0 2 0 (wh en h e m o v ed fo r a d i s ch arg e), s o h e was n o

l o n g er s u b

ject t o p ro b at i o n or co n fi n em en t b as ed on t h e sen t en ce fo r t hat o ffen s e. It

i s al so u n d i s p u t ed t h at t h e reco rd co n t ai n s n o ad ju di cat io n o f g u i lt as t o t h e st at u t o ry

rap e offen s e. Acco rd in g l y

, p ret erm it t i n g wh et h er Gi les s u cces s fu l l y “ fu lfi l l ed

. . . t h e

t e r m s of p ro bat i o n,” h e h as been (o r s h o u l d b e 8 ) rel eas ed fro m co n fi nem en t fo r t h e

s t at u to ry rap e o ffen s e, an d h e h as n o t b een ad ju d i cat ed g u i l ty of t h at offen s e; t h u s

,

h e “ s h al l b e d i s ch arg ed ” as t o t h at o ffen s e. 9

Th e t ri al co urt ru l ed o t h erwi s e b as ed on i t s co n cl u s i o n t h at

, d es p i t e an y ex p l i ci t

ad ju d i cat i o n o f gu i l t

, Gi l es ’ s fi r s t o f f e n d er s t at u s was rev o k ed wh en t h e t ri al co u rt

7 See S ta t e v. Mi ll

s

, 2 6 8 Ga. 8 7 3

, 8 7 4 -8 7 5 (4 95 SE2 d 1 ) (1 99 8 ) (ex p l ai n i n g t h at

t h e d o ck et i n g o f a no t i ce o f d i s ch arg e “ s i m p l y ev i d en ces t h e p ro bat i o n e r ’ s

p re-ex i s ti n g au t o m at i c d i s ch arg e an d d o es no t co n s t it u t e t he ‘ d i s ch arg e’ i t sel f”). See

al s o Ch a s e v. S ta t e

, 2 8 5 Ga. 6 9 3

, 6 9 5 (2 ) (6 8 1 SE2 d 1 1 6 ) (2 0 09 ) (“ W h ere t h e

l a n g u ag e o f a s t at u t e is p l ai n an d s u s cep t i b l e t o o nl y o n e n at u ral an d reas o n ab l e

co n st ru ct i o n , co u rt s m

u s t co n s t ru e t h e s t at ut e acco rd i n g l y

. ”).

8 Gi l es ’ s p ro s e m o t i o n s t at ed t h e h e was s t i l l s u b ject t o p ro bat i o n rep o rt i n g fo r

t h at o ffen s e i n 2 0 2 0

.

9 See OCGA § 4 2 -8 -6 2 (a) (2 0 0 7 ).

5t wi ce rev o k ed h i s p ro b at i o n an d s en t en ced h i m t o co n fi nem en t fo r fai l in g t o reg i s t er

as a s ex o ffen d er. Bu t t h i s m erel y i m p l i cat es t h e p ro ced u re u nd er OCGA § 4 2 -8 -6 0

(b ) (2 0 07 ): “ Up o n v i o l at i o n b y t h e d efen d an t o f t he t e r m s o f p ro b at i o n

, u p on a

co n vi ct i o n fo r a n o t h er cri m e d u ri n g t h e p eri o d o f p ro b at io n

, o r up o n t h e co u rt

d et erm i n i n g t h at t h e defen d an t i s o r was n o t el i g i b l e fo r s en t en ci ng u n d er t h i s art i cl e,

t h e co u rt ma

y en t er an ad

j ud icat i o n o f g ui l t an d p ro ceed as ot he r wi s e p ro v i d ed by

l aw.” 1 0 Th i s l an g u a g e au t h o ri zes a t ri al co u rt to ex erci s e i t s d i s cret i o n i n h o w to

h an dl e a p ro b at i o n v i o l at i o n o r ad d i t i o n al cri m i n al o f f en se. In co n t ras t t o t h e

co m m an d l an g u ag e (“ s h al l”) in OCGA § 4 2 -8 -6 2 (a), t h i s lan g u ag e is n o t au t o m at i c

an d l eav es t h e o u t co m e t o th e t ri al co urt b ecau s e “ in co ns t ru i n g t h e lan g u ag e o f a

s t at u te, t h e wo rd ‘ s hal l ’ o rd i n a r i l y d en o tes co m m an d an d no t p erm i s s io n

, wh ereas

‘ m ay ’ o rd i n ari l y den o t e s p erm i s s i o n an d n o t co m m an d .” 1 1 T h u s

, u p o n a p ro b at i o n

v i o l at i o n

, a d efen d an t is n ot au to m at i cal l y ad ju di cat ed g u il ty o f th e u n derl y i n g fi rs t

o ffen d er o ffen s e. Th e co u rt i s au t h o ri zed t o en t er an ad ju d i cat i o n o f g u il t

, b u t i t i s n ot

req u i red t o d o s o

.

1 0 (Em p has is s u pp l i ed .)

1 1 C a r t l ed g e v. Mo n t a n o

, 3 2 5 Ga. A p p

. 3 2 2

, 3 3 0 (3 ) (7 5 0 SE2 d 77 2 ) ( 2 0 1 3 )

,

q u o t i n g Ri n g

v. W i l l i a ms , 1 9 2 Ga. Ap p . 3 2 9 , 3 30 (2 ) (3 8 4 SE2 d 9 14 ) (1 9 8 9 ).

6Th i s i n t erp ret at i o n i s co n s i s t en t wi t h th e law rel i e d u p o n b y t h e St at e, wh i ch

ex p lai n s t h e Fi rs t Offen d er s ch em e:

It i s o b v i o us t h a t t h e G en eral As sem b l y i nt en d ed t h e fi rs t o ffen d er

p ro b at io n t o h av e a d i fferen t effect th an p ro b at io n i n o t h er cas es

. An y

p ro b at io n ary s e n ten ce en t ered u nd er t hi s Act i s p rel i m i n ary o n l y

, an d

,

i f co m pl et ed w i t ho u t v i o l at i o n

, perm it s t h e o ffen d er co m p l et e

reh ab i l i t at i o n wi t h o u t t h e s t i g m a o f a fel o n y co n v ict i o n

. If, h o wev er,

s u ch o ffen d er d o es n ot t ak e ad v an t ag e o f s u ch o p po rt u n i t y f o r

reh ab i l i t at i o n

, h i s t r i a l wh i ch h as

, i n ef fect

, b een s u s pen d ed i s co n ti n u ed

a n d a n ad j u d ica t i o n o

f g u i lt i s ma de an d a s en t en ce en t er ed

. Un l ik e

o t h er pro b at ed s en t en ces t h e defen dan t i s n ot m erel y s erv i n g h i s

s en t en ce o u t s i d e t he co n fi n es o f p ri s o n

, b u t i s s erv i n g a p eri o d o n

p ro b at io n t o det erm in e wh et h er o r n o t t h e p ri s o ner m ay b e reh ab i l i t at ed

.

If, b y v i o l at i ng t h e t erm s of h i s p ro b at i o n

, t h e d efen d an t sh o ws

t h at h e i s n ot wo rt h y

o f t h e o ffered o p p o rt u ni t y fo r reh ab i l i t at i o n t h en

,

a n d o n l y th en i s he s en t en ced t o t h e pen i t en ti ary

. [An d b ec a u s e t h e

d efen d an t w as n o t i ni t i al l y ad ju d i cat ed g u i l t y ]

, t h e d efen d an t i s s u b ject

t o recei v e an y s en t en ce p erm i t t ed b y law fo r t he o ffen s e h e h as b een

fo u n d g u i l ty o f co m

m i tt i n g [, in cl u d i n g a h ars h er s en t en ce th an th e

o ri g in al fi rs t -o ffen d er s en t en ce.] 1 2

1 2 (Em p h as i s s u p p l i ed .) S t a t e v. W i l ey

, 2 3 3 Ga. 3 16

, 3 1 7 -3 1 8 (2 1 0 SE2 d 7 9 0 )

(1 9 7 4).

7Th i s c a s e p r e s en t s an un u s u al s cen ari o i n wh i ch t h e d efen d an t co m m i t t ed a

p ro b at i o n v i o l at i o n b u t h e was n o t ad ju d i cat ed g u i l t y o f t h e u n d erl y i n g fi rs t -o ffen d er

o ffen s e. W e co u l d s ay t h at Gi l es s h o wed t h at he was n o t “ wo rt hy o f t h e o ffered

o p p o rt u ni t y fo r reh ab i li t at i o n ,” b u t t h e ab o v e d i ct a p res um es t h at an ad ju d i cat i o n o f

g u i l t wo u l d b e en t ered i n t h at s cen ari o

. Here, t here w as s o m e co n s eq uen ce t o Gi les ’ s

p ro b at i o n v i o l at i o n

—

h e s erv ed t i m e i n t h e p en i t en ti ary , b u t t h at co n s eq u en ce was

i n d ep en den t o f an y ju dg m en t en t ered on G i les ’ s g u il t fo r t h e st at u t o ry rap e o ffen s e.

In s u m m ary

, t h e t ri al co u rt rev o k ed Gi l es ’ s pro b at i o n

, as i t was au t h o ri zed to

d o u n d er OCGA § 4 2 -8 -3 8 b as ed o n t h e p ro b at i o n v i o l at io n

. B u t t h e r eco rd s h o ws

t h at t h e tri al co u rt d i d no t en t er (n o r d i d t he St at e s eek ) an ad ju d i cat i o n o f gu i l t as to

t h e u n d e r l yi n g fi rs t-o ffen d er s t at u t o ry rap e o ffen se. OCGA § 4 2-8 -6 0 (b ) (2 0 0 7 )

s t at es t h a t a n a d

j u d icat i o n o f g u i l t ca n res u l t fro m a v i o lat i o n

, bu t it d o es n ot

a u t o ma t i ca l l

y res u l t by o p erat i o n o f law. Ab s en t an o rd er m ak i n g an ad j u d icat i o n o f

g u i l t as t o t h e fi rs t -o ffen d er s t at u t o ry rap e o ffen s e, Gi l es was n ev er ad ju di cat ed g ui l t y

o f t h a t o ffen s e at t h e t i m e t h at t he p ro b at i o n / co n fi n em en t peri o d en d ed fo r t h at

o ffen s e. In effect

, h i s s en t en ce was o v er, an d h e h ad n o t been ad j u d icat ed g u i l t y fo r

8t h e fi rs t o ffen der offen s e. Un d e r t h i s s cen ari o

, G i l es was s u b j ect t o d i s ch arg e

au t o m at i cal l y

u n d er OCGA § 4 2 -8 -6 2 (a) (2 0 0 7 ). 1 3

Ju d g men t r ever sed . Rees e a n d

Br o wn , JJ., co ncu r

.

1 3 See Mi ll

s , 2 6 8 Ga. at 8 7 5

.

9