Donaldson v. State

BISHOP, Judge. Thomas R. Donaldson appeals a judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City (Edward J. Angeletti, J.), entered after the court determined that appellant violated the terms and conditions of his probation, which “extended” the period of his probation by two years from the date of the probation revocation proceedings. “Extending” appellant’s probation was merely a shorthand version of revoking probation, striking the suspension of 'the sentence, reinstating the original sentence, suspending that sentence, and placing ⁶⁵³ him on “further probation.” Brown v. State, 62 Md.App. 74, 78 , 488 A.2d 502 (1985). Appellant contends that the trial court lacked the statutory authority to increase the period of his probation beyond the one year that was originally imposed upon suspension of the sentence for his theft conviction. We do not agree and we held accordingly in Brown v. State, 62 Md.App. 74, 76-77 , 488 A.2d 502 (1985), decided after appellant filed his brief in the case sub judice.

Appellant’s second contention, however, was not resolved by Brown . In addition to his statutory argument, appellant contends that the additional period of probation constitutes double jeopardy as an increase in his sentence. See Brown v. State, 237 Md. 492 , 207 A.2d 103 (1965) where the sentencing court attempted to increase a sentence of life imprisonment to a death sentence after Brown had begun serving the life sentence. The Court held that this was an increase prohibited under the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and under the common law of Maryland. 237 Md. at 503 , 207 A.2d 103 .

We hold that extending the period of probation under Md.Ann.Code art. 27, § 642 (1982) upon a determination that the offender has violated the terms and conditions of his probation does not constitute an increase of sentence. There is no double jeopardy violation when probation is revoked and the