State v. Watson
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
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
- Ponzi v. FessendenSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- White v. PearlmanCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1930
- United States v. Robert Vaughn EvansCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1998
- State v. ElliottSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2006
- State v. HouseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Southland Nat'l Ins. Corp. v. LindbergCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2025
- State of N.C. v. The Chemours Co. FCCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2022
- State of N.C. v. The Chemours Co. FCCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2022
- State v. PerkinsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2022
- State v. WilliamsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2022
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.