McFADDEN, P. J., RICKMAN and MARKLE, JJ.
Glenn appeals from the trial court's order finding that
he violated the terms of his probationary sentence. In his
sole enumeration of error, Glenn argues the trial court erred
in revoking his probation by finding he committed the new
felony offense of interference with government property. For
the reasons stated below, we affirm.
Court will not interfere with a revocation absent manifest
abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.
Accordingly, if admissible evidence is presented in support
of the allegations regarding revocation of probation, this
Court will affirm." (Citations and punctuation omitted.)
Brown v. State, 294 Ga.App. 1, 3 (2) (668 S.E.2d
record shows that in June 2017, Glenn was convicted of felony
obstruction of an officer and battery and was sentenced to 24
months probation. As a general condition of probation, he was
not to violate any criminal laws. In May 2018, a probation
warrant was issued against Glenn, alleging he violated his
probation by committing the new offenses of
loitering/prowling, obstruction of a law enforcement officer,
and interference with government property. That same month,
the State filed a petition for modification/revocation of
probation, contending Glenn violated his probation by
committing these new offenses.
probation revocation hearing, an officer of the Athens-Clarke
County Police Department testified that, in May 2018, he was
dispatched to investigate a suspicious person. He encountered
Glenn walking near the back of Oglethorpe Elementary School
around the time students were being released from school. The
officer had encountered Glenn on a previous occasion. Based
on his previous experience with Glenn, the officer called for
and awaited backup. Before backup arrived, the officer
ordered Glenn to stop and Glenn eventually complied with the
command. Glenn was handcuffed, detained, and placed under
arrest for loitering and prowling.
officer testified his encounter with Glenn was recorded via
body camera, and the video was introduced into evidence at
the hearing. The officer eventually left the scene to conduct
further investigation at the school, but he later returned.
Although the videotape does not show when Glenn damaged the
police vehicle door, it does show an approximately
four-minute interval between the responding officer initially
placing Glenn in handcuffs and eventually putting him in the
patrol car, and an approximately fifteen-minute interval
after Glenn is placed in the police vehicle and when the
responding officer leaves the scene. The video further shows
an approximately 28-minute interval between when the
responding officer left and when he eventually returns to the
scene, and the damage occurred in this time frame.
officer of the Athens-Clarke County Police Department
testified he responded to the location and Glenn was placed
in the back seat of a patrol car while the officers waited
for the first responding officer to complete his
investigation. The second officer testified Glenn complained
of being dehydrated and EMS was called to the scene to check
on him. The officer testified Glenn sat in the ambulance for
several minutes, but when he was asked to exit the ambulance,
he resisted by grabbing onto the seatbelt and not letting go.
Glenn continued to resist. The officer warned Glenn that if
he continued to resist he would use his Taser. The officer
explained that once Glenn was placed back in the patrol car,
he kicked off the door panel of the driver's side door.
The officer stated his rear passenger door was off its hinges
and would not close properly. After Glenn was placed in a
second patrol car, he began kicking the window of that car as
hearing the evidence, the trial court found the officer
lacked sufficient probable cause to arrest Glenn for
loitering and prowling. Thus, the officer was not acting in
the lawful discharge of his duties when he arrested Glenn.
The trial court also found, however, that Glenn violated his
probation as to the charge of interference with government
property. Based on this new felony offense, the trial court
revoked 90 days of Glenn's probation, but suspended the
sentence on the condition that Glenn enter and undergo
treatment with an accountability court. Thereafter, Glenn
petitioned this Court for discretionary review, which we
granted. This appeal followed.
argues the trial court erred by finding he committed the new
offense of interference with government property because he
was resisting an unlawful arrest and was justified in using
force and damaging property as part of his resistance. . We
court may not revoke any part of any probated or suspended
sentence unless the defendant admits the violation as alleged
or unless the evidence produced at the revocation hearing
establishes by a preponderance of the evidence the violation
or violations alleged." OCGA § 42-8-34.1 (b).
However, "this Court will not interfere with a
revocation absent manifest abuse of discretion on the part of
the trial court. Accordingly, if admissible evidence is
presented in support of the allegations regarding revocation
of probation, this Court will affirm." (Citation
omitted.) Summerford v. State, 316 Ga.App. 201, 202
(728 S.E.2d 829) (2012). As we have explained, "the
quantum of evidence sufficient to justify revocation of
probation is less than that necessary to sustain a conviction
in the first instance. Only slight evidence is required to
authorize revocation." (Citations omitted.) Christy
v. State, 134 Ga.App. 504, 506 (1) (215 S.E.2d 267)
(1975). With this framework in mind, we turn to Glenn's
person commits the offense of interference with government
property when he destroys, damages, or defaces government
property[.]" OCGA § 16-7-24 (a). Here, several
officers testified that Glenn was placed under arrest,
physically resisted the officer's attempts to arrest him,
and after more than fifteen minutes passed, he damaged the
police car door.
contends that the trial court erred because he was justified
in using force against the police vehicle in the course of
resisting an unlawful arrest. Glenn further argues it is
inconsistent to allow a person who is unlawfully arrested to
use force against a police officer to resist that unlawful
arrest, but not to allow a person who is illegally arrested
to use force against property.
a defendant claims justification, he admits that he intended
to engage in the conduct which constitutes the crime but
argues that under the circumstances he was justified in so
acting and that he therefore lacked the requisite criminal
intent." (Citation and footnote omitted.) Jackson v.
State, 329 Ga.App. 240, 241-242 (764 S.E.2d 569) (2014).
"The fact that a person's conduct is justified is a
defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct.
The defense of justification can be claimed . . .," as
is relevant here, "[w]hen the person's conduct is
justified for any reason under the laws of this state . . .
or [i]n all other instances which stand upon the same footing
of reason and justice as those enumerated in this
article." (Punctuation omitted.) OCGA § 16-3-20
(5)-(6). Furthermore, it is a well-founded principle of law
that a ...