Opinion ID: 1179416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Proceedings Must Be Completed During Probationary Period

Text: At the other extreme, some jurisdictions have held that probation revocation proceedings must be completed before expiration of the probation term. The Arizona probation statute provides that a court may revoke and terminate probation at any time during the probationary term or period of probation. This language was construed to mean that the trial court does not have jurisdiction over a probationer where probation revocation procedures and the imposition of a sentence have not been accomplished prior to the expiration of his term of probation. Keller v. Superior Court, 22 Ariz.App. 122, 124, 524 P.2d 956, 958 (1974) (citing Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13-1657 (1974)); see also Haney v. Eyman, 97 Ariz. 289, 291-293, 399 P.2d 905, 906-07 (1965) ([E]ven though the maximum sentence might be for a longer period of time, if the suspension of the imposition of sentence is for a shorter period ... both the sentence and the judgment must be made within that probationary period.). The Virginia Supreme Court has held that because a trial court did not enter an order revoking the defendant's probation within the probation term, the court had no power to invoke jurisdiction after the probation term had expired. Cook v. Virginia, 211 Va. 290, 176 S.E.2d 815 (1970); see also California v. White, 133 Cal.App.3d 677, 682, 184 Cal.Rptr. 134, 137 (1982) (An order revoking probation must be made within the period of time circumscribed in the order of probation.... If no order of modification or revocation is made before the end of the period of probation..., the court has no authority or jurisdiction over the defendant.); Reed v. Georgia, 101 Ga.App. 714, 115 S.E.2d 270 (1960) (The court holds that revocation order entered on the last day of the defendant's probation term was valid. If the probation period had expired, however, the trial court would not have had jurisdiction to revoke probation); Curtsinger v. Kentucky, 549 S.W.2d 515, 516 (Ky.1977); Missouri ex rel. Carlton v. Haynes, 552 S.W.2d 710, 714 (Mo.1977).