The judgment of the trial court revoking the defendant's probation and ordering him to serve eight years in the penitentiary was not error for any reason assigned.
SUBMITTED NOVEMBER 7, 1966 — DECIDED NOVEMBER 14, 1966.
On December 4, 1957, W. T. Poss, after entering a plea of guilty to an indictment charging him with robbery by force and violence, was sentenced to a prison term of twenty years, "three years to be served in said penitentiary and seventeen years to be served out of said penitentiary during the good behavior of said defendant." On April 1, 1966, W. T. Poss was served with a rule nisi to show cause why such probation should not be revoked after a petition was filed by the Chief Circuit Probation Officer which charged the defendant with violating the terms of the sentence of December 4, 1957, by having failed to maintain good behavior by violating described laws of the State of Georgia. On April 6, 1966, at such hearing evidence was introduced showing that the defendant was convicted of burglary in 1962.
The defendant testified that at the time he received the 1957 sentence the court said: "I'm giving you twenty years with three years to serve and the balance to be served outside the penitentiary on good behavior." Thereafter, the trial court revoked the probation ordering the defendant to serve eight years in the penitentiary. From this judgment the defendant appealed.
NICHOLS, Presiding Judge.
The defendant makes two contentions as to why the judgment ordering him to serve eight years in the penitentiary should be reversed: (1) He was not notified by the Circuit Probation Officer of the terms of his probation, and (2) the original sentence did not impose any condition of conduct upon the defendant.
Assuming that the defendant was not informed as to the terms of his sentence and what was required of him "by the Circuit Probation Officer" nevertheless he was admittedly so informed by the superior court judge at the time he was originally sentenced. Section 9 of the Act of 1956 (Ga. L. 1956, pp. 27, 32; Code Ann. § 27-1710), which requires the circuit probation officers to give the probationers a certified copy of the sentence is to insure that each probationer is familiar with the terms of his sentence. Therefore, where as in the present case, the defendant was admittedly familiar with the terms of his sentence the failure of the Circuit Probation Officer to furnish him with a certified copy of his sentence did not vitiate the terms of said sentence.
Nor is the contention that the original sentence did not impose any condition upon the defendant meritorious. The original sentence contained the same language as that approved in Tidwell v. State, 76 Ga. App. 711 ( 47 S.E.2d 76), while the cases relied upon by the defendant contain no conditions concerning the behavior required of the defendant.
The judgment of the trial court revoking the defendant's probation shows no reversible error.
Judgment affirmed. Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.