12/28/2019
A few months ago, the Court of Appeals of Georgia confirmed what we all thought was true-- probationers can have their probation revoked with an expedited process that has less "due process" and less "notice" to the offender than would be due to a regular citizen not on probation (or parole, for that matter). The Court ruled that it was not necessary for the State to be very specific in its petition to revoke this woman's probation. It didn't have to describe in detail the method by which she committed forgery while trying to obtain more RX controlled substances (the same offense for which she had already been convicted and was on probation). The State's petition to the Court only listed the name of the new offense, the date she allegedly did it, and the county. It didn't name the pharmacy or doctor's office, and it didn't describe the note or signature that she allegedly forged. IN PRACTICE, SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD ALL THOSE DETAILS BY HER PROBATION OFFICER, who would have met her and told her what the cops said abut the incident, what they wrote in their report, or what they wrote in an arrest warrant affidavit. Then the probation officer would have asked if she would stipulate or agree that she was in violation of her probation for doing that new offense, to make a probation revocation hearing unnecessary. She could either agree to the amount of time to be revoked, or should could simply stipulate to the violation but still ask the judge not to revoke her probation, or to revoke her for a shorter time than what the State (probation officer) recommends. BOTTOM LINE: This case is probably a big nothing-burger, in that she likely knew all the key details of what the State thinks she did to violate her probation. If she wanted to fight it at a contested hearing, she knew what the State was going to say, and she would be able to prepare a rebuttal to it.
https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/court-of-appeals/2019/a19a1601.html