505 P.2d 1044
No. 2 CA-CIV 1294.Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two.
January 30, 1973.
Habeas corpus proceeding. The Superior Court, Pinal County, Cause No. 26016, T.J. Mahoney, J., summarily dismissed petition, and petitioner appealed. The Court of Appeals, 504 P.2d 949, affirmed. In supplemental opinion, on motion for rehearing, the Court of Appeals, Howard, J., held that period of five months served by prisoner, who contended that he had served three years and five months, could not be considered for “good time” credit purposes, in that good conduct time is to be credited to a prisoner only on completion of each full year served.
Don Jones, in pro. per.
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen. by Howard L. Fell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tucson, and C. Burton Cosgrove, III, Third Year Law Student Certified, Under Rule 28(e), for appellee.
OPINION ON REHEARING
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.