The defendant appeals an order revoking two years of the remaining term of his probated sentence. Held:

1. It is contended that defendant’s constitutional rights were vio*19lated because the evidence did not sustain the probation revocation beyond a reasonable doubt.

This court and the Georgia Supreme Court, whose decisions are binding upon us, have often reaffirmed the legal maxim that the quantum of proof sufficient to justify a revocation of probation is less than that required to sustain conviction in the first instance. Thus, in such proceeding it is unnecessary that the evidence support the findings beyond a reasonable doubt. Robinson v. State, 154 Ga. App. 591, 593 (269 SE2d 86); Johnson v. State, 214 Ga. 818 (108 SE2d 313). As stated in Baltimore v. State, 165 Ga. App. 741 (2) (302 SE2d 427): “There is no merit in the defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in applying a constitutionally defective ‘slight evidence’ standard of proof in determining whether defendant had violated the conditions of the probation.” Accord, Johnson v. State, 240 Ga. 526 (242 SE2d 53); State v. Brinson, 248 Ga. 380 (2) (283 SE2d 463).

2. Applying the evidentiary standard enunciated by our courts the judgment was authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.