Legal Opinion

State v. Watson

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided March 6, 2018No. COA17-253PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

INMAN, Judge.

*348 North Carolina law requires a sentencing criminal court to enter an order of commitment consistent with the judgment entered, and a defendant is entitled to entry of such order nunc pro tunc where no such order is entered. However, a commitment order entered nunc pro tunc may not vary the terms of the underlying judgment, including a requirement that the defendant serve his sentence in the custody of a state agency. Therefore, a defendant's sentence does not begin until he is actually remitted to the custody of the agency designated in and as required by the judgment.

Jamal M.…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Ponzi v. FessendenSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  2. White v. PearlmanCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1930
  3. United States v. Robert Vaughn EvansCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1998
  4. State v. ElliottSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2006
  5. State v. HouseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Southland Nat'l Ins. Corp. v. LindbergCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2025
  2. State of N.C. v. The Chemours Co. FCCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2022
  3. State of N.C. v. The Chemours Co. FCCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2022
  4. State v. PerkinsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2022
  5. State v. WilliamsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2022

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API