Court Opinion

ID: 9582044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:21:52.729632+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:24.859410
License: Public Domain

Pope, Judge,
concurring specially.
While I agree with the result reached by the majority, I am compelled to offer the following additional comments regarding Division 3 of this opinion.
The purpose of the First Offender Act, Code Ann. § 27-2727 et seq. (hereinafter Act), is “... to provide that persons accused of crime, who have not been previously convicted of a felony, with their consent, be placed on probation after a finding but before an adjudication of guilt.” Ga. L. 1968, p. 324. A first-offender defendant is placed on probation as provided by the Statewide Probation Act, Code Ann. §§ 27-2702 through 27-2726.1. If such a defendant violates the terms of his probation, or is convicted of another crime, the trial court may then “enter an adjudication of guilt and proceed as otherwise provided.” Code Ann. § 27-2727.
Under the provisions of the Act, no “sentence” is imposed upon a defendant receiving first-offender probation thereunder, “sentence” being defined: “The judgment formally pronounced by the court. . . upon the defendant after his conviction in a criminal prosecution, awarding the punishment to be inflicted. Judgment formally declaring to [an] accused [the] legal consequences of [the] guilt which he has confessed or of which he has been convicted.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1528 (4th ed. 1968); see Bearden v. State of Ga., 122 Ga. App. 25 (3) (176 SE2d 243) (1970). Rather, under the Act “sentence” is deferred while the defendant is given an opportunity by the trial court to show that he is capable of comporting himself as a responsible, law-abiding citizen; i.e., he is given a chance to rehabilitate himself without the stigma of a felony conviction. State v. Wiley, 233 Ga. 316 (210 SE2d 790) (1974). If he successfully fulfills the terms of his probation, “the defendant shall be discharged without court adjudication of guilt.” (Emphasis supplied.) Code Ann. § 27-2728.
The trial court instructs the first-offender defendant in regard to the provisions of the Act at the time the probation is given. Code Ann. § 27-2729. It has been my experience that at this stage of the proceedings the defendant is instructed that if he violates the provisions of his probation, he can then be adjudicated guilty and could receive up to the maximum sentence provided by law for the crime he has committed. See State v. Wiley, supra. The record shows *510that the defendant in the case at bar was informed of the provisions of the Act and I am persuaded that these instructions probably included his being informed that he could receive up to the maximum sentence allowed by law if he violated the terms of his probation. Nevertheless, the probation given in this case, when reduced to writing on a form entitled “SENTENCE OF PROBATION (Felony or State Misdemeanor and First-Offender),” contained the following language: “WHEREUPON, it is ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said defendant is hereby sentenced to confinement for a period of Ten (10) years under the First Offender Act.” Just below this language the form also provided: “WHEREUPON, it is ordered and adjudged by the Court that the defendant serve Ten (10) years upon probation. This sentence is imposed with defendant’s consent under the provisions of the Act for Probation of First-Offenders and further proceedings are deferred in accordance with said Act . . .” Finally, the form provided: “If such probation is revoked, the Court may order the execution of the sentence which was originally imposed or any portion thereof in the matter provided by law after deduction therefrom the amount of time the defendant has served on probation. ” (Emphasis supplied.) This form was prepared or provided by the Department of Correction/Offender Rehabilitation (hereinafter DOR). An additional form in the record of this case entitled “FIRST OFFENDER SENTENCE” provided that “... the Court shall, prior to the expiration of the aforesaid period of probation, enter an adjudication of guilt and require the defendant to serve said probated sentence in custody should the defendant violate any of the terms of probation or violate any law whatsoever.” (Emphasis supplied.) Although the forms used in this case are not identical to the one used by the trial court in Lillard v. State, 156 Ga. App. 54 (2) (274 SE2d 96) (1980), the language emphasized above requires us to reach the same conclusion as we reached in Lillard, supra; i.e., the language of the “sentencing” document precludes the trial court from increasing the first-offender defendant’s “sentence” when his probation is revoked.1
The result we have reached in the case at bar is not, in my view, the result envisioned by the General Assembly when the Act was enacted. The purpose of the Act is to permit a first offender, after a *511finding of guilt, to rehabilitate himself under the supervision of the trial court and thereby avoid the infliction of punishment for his crime. Accordingly, the probation given a first-offender defendant is not a “sentence,” because at the time probation is given, the trial court has made no adjudication of guilt.2 “No former adjudication of guilt having been made and no prior sentence having been entered thereon, the defendant is subject to receive any sentence permitted by law for the offense he has been found guilty of committing.” State v. Wiley, supra at 318. In other words, the Act clearly permits a trial court to impose up to the maximum sentence allowed by law on a defendant who has violated the terms of his first-offender probation, even though said probation was of lesser magnitude.
The problem, as I see it, is that the trial courts of this state have been using forms provided or prepared by DOR which disregard the essential differences between first-offender probation and probation imposed as punishment upon an adjudication of guilt. Since these forms provide that the defendant’s “sentence” has in fact been imposed, and since said defendant is entitled to rely on the provisions set forth in the “sentencing” document if he is not informed to the contrary when the “sentence” is imposed (Huff v. McLarty, 241 Ga. 442 (246 SE2d 302) (1978)), the trial courts who utilize these forms are constrained to abide by the provisions therein and may not impose a sentence of greater length than the first-offender probation.
I believe the better practice would be to use separate, specialized forms for first-offender probation. Such forms should strictly conform to the provisions of the Act and to the decision in State v. Wiley, supra. In the event that the multi-purpose DOR forms continue to be used, inappropriate language should be obliterated therefrom by the trial court when used for first-offender probation. Additionally in such a case, a transcript of the proceedings instituting first-offender probation would be helpful to this court in reviewing the matter on appeal.

 The record in Lillard discloses that the sentence imposed by the trial court after the defendant’s probation had been revoked contained the following language: “If such probation is revoked, the Court may order the execution of the sentence which was originally imposed or any portion thereof in the manner provided by law after deduction therefrom the amount of time the defendant has served on probation, or under the First Offender Act may impose a new sentence.” (Emphasis supplied.)

 For this reason also I agree with former Justice Nichols’ dissent in Stephens v. State, 245 Ga. 835, 838 (268 SE2d 330) (1980), in which he concluded that time spent on first-offender probation should not be credited to any sentence imposed as the result of the revocation of such probation.