concurring.
¶ 17 I agree with the results reached in the majority opinion. I also agree that the trial judge had the authority to continue defendant on probation for two years after he violated probation during the initial six month period. Because my analysis differs, however, I write separately.
¶ 18 A.R.S. § 13-901(A) authorizes a probationary disposition in eligible cases, and § 13-901 (B) prescribes that “[t]he period shall be determined according to § 13-902.” A.R.S. § 13-902(A) provides that probation for a class 1 misdemeanor “may continue for ... three years.” Unless defendant’s probation was terminated earlier, the trial court had the authority to order that defendant be supervised for the whole three year period authorized by § 13-902(A). Although the trial court anticipated at the time of the original sentencing that defendant’s probation would be terminated within six months, defendant’s noncompliance with the conditions of probation obviated that option. Nothing in the statutes suggests that the trial court’s initial optimism bound it to an early termination of probation that defendant’s conduct ruled out, and reason compels the conclusion that the trial court could continue defendant on probation for up to three years.
¶ 19 The majority finds support for the continuation of probation in this case in the authority to modify the conditions of probation after a finding of probation violation. I do not think that continuing or increasing or extending the period of probation constitutes a modification or addition to the conditions of probation. Our supreme court apparently concludes otherwise. See State v. Korzuch, 186 Ariz. 190, 193, 920 P.2d 312, 315 (1996). But we simply do not need Rule 27 to help us decide this case.
¶ 20 Finally, while dicta in State v. Blackman, 114 Ariz. 517, 518, 562 P.2d 397, 398 (App.1977) may support the trial court’s continuation of probation beyond the initially projected six-month period, I conclude that the trial court did not need any additional express statutory authority beyond § 13-902(A) to “increase” the probationary period, because the statute set the period at three years “unless terminated sooner.” Probation in this case was properly not “terminated sooner” than three years, and, under the statute, defendant is on the hook for three years.