Jones v. State ex rel. Eyman

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Jones v. State ex rel. Eyman

505 P.2d 1044, 19 Ariz. App. 153, 1973 Ariz. App. LEXIS 463

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona

DecidedJanuary 30, 1973

DocketNo. 2 CA-CIV 1294

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 505 P.2d 1044 (Jones v. State ex rel. Eyman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. State ex rel. Eyman, 505 P.2d 1044, 19 Ariz. App. 153, 1973 Ariz. App. LEXIS 463 (Ark. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON REHEARING

HOWARD, Judge.

On December 27, 1972, 19 Ariz.App. 26, 504 P.2d 949, this court rendered its opinion in the above entitled case. A timely motion for rehearing was made by the appellant. We did not discuss in our opinion appellant’s claim that the authorities, in compiling his release date, failed to consider all of the “good time” which he has accrued. In other words, he contends he has served three years and five months as of October 16, 1972, and the prison has failed to give him credit for the five-month period.

This contention is without merit. Good conduct time under A.R.S. § 31-251 is to be credited to a prisoner only upon completion of each full year served. Fragosa v. Eyman, 3 Ariz.App. 308, 414 P.2d 157 (1966). Consequently, the period of five months cannot be considered for credit purposes.

Upon the filing of this supplemental opinion, appellant’s motion for rehearing is denied.

HATHAWAY, C. J., and KRUCKER, J., concur.

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

OPINION ON REHEARING

HOWARD, Judge.

On December 27, 1972, 19 Ariz.App. 26, 504 P.2d 949, this court rendered its opinion in the above entitled case. A timely motion for rehearing was made by the appellant. We did not discuss in our opinion appellant’s claim that the authorities, in compiling his release date, failed to consider all of the “good time” which he has accrued. In other words, he contends he has served three years and five months as of October 16, 1972, and the prison has failed to give him credit for the five-month period.

This contention is without merit. Good conduct time under A.R.S. § 31-251 is to be credited to a prisoner only upon completion of each full year served. Fragosa v. Eyman, 3 Ariz.App. 308, 414 P.2d 157 (1966). Consequently, the period of five months cannot be considered for credit purposes.

Upon the filing of this supplemental opinion, appellant’s motion for rehearing is denied.

HATHAWAY, C. J., and KRUCKER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 P.2d 1044, 19 Ariz. App. 153, 1973 Ariz. App. LEXIS 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-state-ex-rel-eyman-arizctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack