Simmons v. State, 101 S.E.2d 111 (Ga. Ct. App. 1957). · Go Syfert
Search
Simmons v. State, 101 S.E.2d 111 (Ga. Ct. App. 1957). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: George v. State (gactapp, 1959-07-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) George v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1959 · confidence medium
In Simmons v. State, 96 Ga. App. 718, 719 ( 101 S. E. 2d 111 ) it was held that the probated sentence must show the terms prescribed “so that a violation of such rules and regulations will revoke the parole.” To the same effect see Cross v. Huff, 208 Ga. 392 ( 67 S. E. 2d 124 ) where it was held that where the court prescribed no conditions of probation, he could not revoke the probation on the ground that its conditions had not been complied with.
Simmons
v.
the State
36905.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Nov 12, 1957.
101 S.E.2d 111
Dan Copland, Mark Dunahoo, for plaintiff in error., Alfred A. Quillian, Solicitor-General, contra.
Gardner, Townsend, Carlisle.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Gardner, P. J.

It will be noted that no prescribed rules or regulations are shown in the probated sentence. It is clearly the law of this State that probated sentences must show the rules and regulations prescribed so that a violation of such rules and regulations will revoke the parole. In Cross v. Huff, 208 Ga. 392 (67 S. E. 2d 124) the Supreme Court said: “A judge imposing a[*720] sentence is granted power to suspend or probate the sentence under such rules and regulations as he thinks proper. The judge has the right and authority to revoke the suspension or probation, after notice and a hearing, when the defendant violates any of the rules and regulations prescribed by the court. Code §§ 27-2702, 27-2705, as amended by Ga. L. 1950, p. 352. Where no rules or regulations are prescribed in the alleged suspended or probated sentence, and no violation of a prescribed rule or regulation is alleged, the court is without authority to order the defendant incarcerated upon the theory that he has violated the terms and conditions of a probation sentence.”

It follows that the court erred in revoking the probated sentence.

Judgment reversed.

Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.