or instructions.” Rule 27.4, Ala. R.Crim. P. The circuit court filed its “Amendment to Probation Order” before the five-year maximum probationary period had expired. However, the amendment did not include an order to show cause or allege that the appellant had violated any conditions, regulations, or instructions of her probation. Rather, it simply indicated that the circuit court had spoken to the appellant’s probation officer. Because it was not an overt or affirmative action that officially began the revocation proceedings, the circuit court’s “Amendment to Probation Order” was not sufficient to initiate revocation proceedings and toll the running of the appellant’s probationary period. See Rule 27.4(a), Ala. R.Crim. P.; Watkins v. State, 455 So.2d 160 (Ala.Crim.App.1984) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the appellant’s probation officer
holding that the general rules of preservation apply in probation revocation proceedings recognizing right of allocution in probation revocation proceedings holding that probation revocation proceedings are clearly not criminal proceedings holding that a notation in the probation officers file that watkins was delinquent was not sufficient to initiate revocation proceedings and to toll the running of watkins probationary period holding that the failure to satisfactorily meet the conditions of probation is not the legal equivalent of absconding and does not toll the probationary period