Ex Parte Bentley

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Ex Parte Bentley

81 S.E.2d 206, 240 N.C. 112, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 657

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 7, 1954

Docket290

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 81 S.E.2d 206 (Ex Parte Bentley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ex Parte Bentley, 81 S.E.2d 206, 240 N.C. 112, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 657 (N.C. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHNSON, J.

In re Smith, 235 N.C. 169, 69 S.E. 2d 174, is decisive of this case. The rule is that two sentences, in the absence of a directive as to time of commencement, in order to run concurrently, must be sentences to the same place of confinement. Sentences to different institutions, in the very nature of things, are consecutive and not concurrent. In re Smith, supra.

The decision in In re Parker, 225 N.C. 369, 35 S.E. 2d 169, which no doubt influenced the court below in releasing the defendant, is distinguishable. There, the sentences were to be served at the same prison. Here, the defendant was sentenced in the first case to the common jail of Caldwell County, in the second to the State Prison. It necessarily follows that he must serve the rest of the prison sentence imposed in the latter case. Let capias and commitment issue accordingly.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JOHNSON, J.

In re Smith, 235 N.C. 169, 69 S.E. 2d 174, is decisive of this case. The rule is that two sentences, in the absence of a directive as to time of commencement, in order to run concurrently, must be sentences to the same place of confinement. Sentences to different institutions, in the very nature of things, are consecutive and not concurrent. In re Smith, supra.

The decision in In re Parker, 225 N.C. 369, 35 S.E. 2d 169, which no doubt influenced the court below in releasing the defendant, is distinguishable. There, the sentences were to be served at the same prison. Here, the defendant was sentenced in the first case to the common jail of Caldwell County, in the second to the State Prison. It necessarily follows that he must serve the rest of the prison sentence imposed in the latter case. Let capias and commitment issue accordingly.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 S.E.2d 206, 240 N.C. 112, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-bentley-nc-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack