Campbell v. State, 48718

• Decision Date: 25 February 1978
• Docket Number: No. 48718,48718
• Citation: 223 Kan. 528,575 P.2d 524
• Parties: Randall L. CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Kansas, Appellee.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 524

575 P.2d 524

223 Kan. 528

Randall L. CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Kansas, Appellee.

No. 48718.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Feb. 25, 1978.

Syllabus by the Court

1. K.S.A. 21-4614 requires a sentencing court to give a defendant credit for each day spent in jail, solely on account of the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced.

2. A defendant is not entitled to credit on a sentence for time which he has spent in jail upon other, distinct, and wholly unrelated charges.

Randall H. McEwen, Hutchinson, was on the brief for appellant.

No appearance by appellee.

MILLER, Justice:

Randall L. Campbell appeals from an order of the Reno District Court, denying his motion for relief under K.S.A. 60-1507. Stated simply, his complaint is that at the time of sentencing, the Reno District Court erred in failing to give him credit for time he spent in the Barton County jail. The facts are as follows:

August 29, 1975 Campbell pled guilty in the Reno District Court to a charge of second possession of marihuana, Case No. 9844. Pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4614, the sentencing judge fixed August 29, 1975, as the date on which the sentence imposed was to begin. Campbell was placed on probation.

October 6, 1975 A new complaint was filed in Reno County, Case No. 9957, charging Campbell with burglary and felony theft. A warrant was issued.

October 7, 1975 Barton County authorities arrested Campbell on drug charges arising in that county. Campbell was not released, and remained in custody in Barton County until December 19, 1975.

December 19, 1975 Campbell pled guilty to five felony counts in Barton District Court. He was sentenced to concurrent two-year terms, and, according to statements of counsel made in oral argument before us, the sentencing judge fixed October 7, 1975, as the date on which the sentence was to begin. Campbell was then turned over to Reno County authorities.

December 29, 1975 Campbell pled guilty in Reno District Court, Case No. 9957, to burglary and felony theft. After the allocution, Campbell was sentenced to concurrent terms of two to ten years, these sentences to be served concurrently with "any other sentence he is now serving." The sentencing judge fixed December 19, 1975, as the date on which those sentences were to begin. The judge also revoked the probation granted in Case No. 9844.

Campbell claims that when he was arrested in Barton County, the sheriff either "had or had knowledge of" the outstanding Reno County warrant. He contends that under K.S.A. 21-4614, he is entitled to credit on the Reno County sentences, imposed on December 29, 1975, for all time he served in the Barton County jail.

The statute reads as follows:

K.S.A. 21-4614. "In any criminal action in which the defendant is convicted upon a plea of guilty or trial by court or jury, the judge, if he sentences the defendant to confinement, shall direct that for the purpose of computing defendant's sentence and his parole eligibility and conditional release dates thereunder, that such sentence is to be computed from a date, to be specifically designated by the court in the journal entry of conviction, such date shall be established to reflect and shall be computed as an allowance for the time which the defendant has spent in jail pending the disposition of the defendant's case. In recording the commencing date of such sentence the date as specifically set forth by the court in the journal entry of conviction shall be used as the date of sentence and all good time allowances as are authorized by the Kansas adult authority are to be allowed on such sentence from such date as though the defendant were actually incarcerated in any of the institutions of the state correctional system. Such jail time credit is not to be considered to reduce the minimum or maximum terms of confinement as are authorized by law for the offense of which the defendant has been convicted."

The language which is important here is the phrase, " . . . the time which the defendant has spent in jail pending the disposition of the defendant's case." In State v. Mackley, 220 Kan. 518, 552 P.2d 628, we held that the physical place of confinement was not important, and that under the statute a defendant was entitled to credit not only for time spent in the jail of the county where the charge was pending, but also for time spent in hospitals where he underwent court-ordered mental examinations. The rationale of Mackley would require credit for jail time regardless of the location of the place of confinement, when the custody was a direct result of the pending charges.

The Kansas Court of Appeals has twice considered the import of this statute. In State v. Thorn, 1 Kan.App.2d 460, 570 P.2d 1100, the court held that the defendant was entitled to credit for time spent in custody under order of the juvenile court while...