Defendant, Robert Wade Adams, shall serve the twenty year sentence in Case Number CC 05-102 and CC 06-008 straight.” (C.R. 80-82.) The appellant argues that the circuit court erroneously revoked his probation based on his failure to comply with the conditions set forth in his plea agreement because compliance with the conditions of the plea agreement was not a condition of his probation. Rule 27.6(e), Ala. R.Crim. P., provides, in pertinent part: “Probation shall not be revoked for violation of a condition or regulation if the probationer had not received a written copy of the condition or regulation.” However, this court has recognized that there are certain conditions of probation that are implicit in every probationary sentence. See Hill v. State, 624 So.2d 1102 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) (<HOLDING>); Wilcox v. State, 395 So.2d 1054 (Ala.1981)
holding that a sentence structured with three years incarceration suspended and eight years of sex offender probation was a true split sentence holding that probation is not a sentence holding that every probationary sentence includes the implicit condition that a probationer serving a split sentence will comply with prison rules and regulations while on probation holding that sentence of fortyeight months in state prison as a condition of probation violated section 948032 and was an illegal sentence holding that probation does not constitute a sentence