Appellees agree with appellant as to the effect of the commutation on the sentence, citing, among others, Scharff v. Tennessee, 551 S.W.2d 671 (Tenn. 1977); Ex Parte Enriquez 490 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973); Bowen v. Tenn see, 488 S.W.2d 373 (Tenn. 1972); In re Hall, 34 Neb. 206, 51 N.W. 750 (1892); cf. In re McMahon, 125 N.C. 38, 34 S.E. 193 (1899). We feel that the trial court erred as to the effect of the commutation.
(Emphasis Ours) See also State ex rel. Murphy v. Wolfer, 127 Minn. 102, 148 N.W. 896. Compare In re McMahon, 125 N.C. 38, 34 S.E. 193. 3. And, are these commuted inmates entitled to mandatory assessment of full "good time' privileges under Article 6184l, supra, or, are these inmates merely entitled to consideration for "good time' credit pursuant to the normal rules and regulations of the administration of the Texas Department of Corrections' disciplinary system which allows a denial of "good time' credits depending on an inmate's conduct within the institution?
No error. Affirmed. Cited: Boone v. Darden, 109 N.C. 77; Mizell v. Ruffin, 113 N.C. 23; Moore v. Brady, 125 N.C. 38; Pfeifer v. Israel, 161 N.C. 430; Milling Co. v. Stevens, ibid., 512. (139)
PER CURIAM. Venire de novo. Cited: Pemberton v. McRae, 75 N.C. 501; Jones v. Robinson, 78 N.C. 400; Dunkart v. Rinehart, 89 N.C. 357; Atkinson v. Graves, 91 N.C. 102; Spivey v. Grant, 96 N.C. 223; S. v. Garris, 98 N.C. 737; McDaniel v. Allen, 99 N.C. 138; Carpenter v. Medford, Ib., 500; Mizzell v. Ruffin, 113 N.C. 23; Driller v. Worth, 117 N.C. 522; Holman v. Whitaker, 119 N.C. 114; Moose v. Brady, 125 N.C. 38; Chemical Co. v. McNair, 139 N.C. 330; Pfeifer v. Israel, 161 N.C. 430; Milling Co. v. Stevenson, Ib., 512. Dist.: Boone v. Darden, 109 N.C. 77; Lupton v. Lupton, 117 N.C. 31; Pitts v. Curtis, 152 N.C. 616.