Ex Parte Bentley

81 S.E.2d 206, 240 N.C. 112, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 657
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided April 7, 1954·No. 290·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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

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

81 S.E.2d 206 (Ex Parte Bentley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People ex rel. Pettaway v. Zelker
70 Misc. 2d 997 (New York Supreme Court, 1971)
People ex rel. Sanchez v. Zelker
70 Misc. 2d 1008 (New York Supreme Court, 1971)
State v. Brooks
156 S.E.2d 676 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)
In Re Swink
89 S.E.2d 792 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)
State v. Stonestreet
89 S.E.2d 734 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)