State v. Prebble
| Decision Date | 02 March 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 96,596.,96,596. |
| Citation | 152 P.3d 1245 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Robert Colt PREBBLE, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Michelle Davis, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.
David A. Page, assistant county attorney, Ty Kaufman, county attorney, and Phill Kline, attorney general, for appellee.
Before GREENE, P.J., MALONE and HILL, JJ.
Robert Colt Prebble appeals the district court's order denying him jail time credit. Prebble was held in the McPherson County jail for 231 days pending disposition of his felony case in that district. The issue is whether Prebble should be denied credit for the time he was held in the McPherson County jail because he had a detainer from another district during the time he was held in custody.
On July 14, 2005, the Rice County District Court issued a felony arrest warrant for a theft allegedly committed by Prebble on or about July 1, 2005. Although the record is unclear, it also appears Prebble had outstanding warrants at that time from Nickerson and Hutchinson municipal courts.
On August 8, 2005, McPherson police responded to a domestic disturbance call involving Prebble. The police were aware of the Rice County felony warrant at the time they responded to the call. After locating Prebble, the police attempted to arrest him based on the Rice County warrant. Prebble did not cooperate, but he was eventually taken into custody, and the arrest warrant was returned to Rice County on that same date.
On August 16, 2005, Prebble was charged in McPherson County District Court with obstructing official duty, a felony, and also with battery against a law enforcement officer and simple battery, both misdemeanors, arising from the domestic disturbance and from Prebble's attempt to resist the arrest. Prebble remained in custody in the McPherson County jail pending his trial. Following a jury trial, Prebble was convicted of all three counts. The record does not reflect that Prebble was ever returned to Rice County to answer the felony theft charge, and his presentence investigation report indicated Prebble had a "detainer or other charges pending" at the time of his sentencing in McPherson County.
On March 27, 2006, Prebble was sentenced to a controlling term of 16 months in prison. Prebble requested credit for the 231 days he had spent in the McPherson County jail pending disposition of his case. The district court inquired if Prebble was being held on any other charges, and the prosecutor informed the court about the Rice County detainer. The district court denied Prebble's request for jail time credit and stated, "[T]he law in Kansas is simply if you're held under more than one charge from different counties, that it is not to be credited. . . ." Prebble timely appeals.
The only issue is whether the district court erred in denying Prebble credit for the time he was held in the McPherson County jail pending disposition of his case. The issue involves statutory interpretation. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which this court has unlimited review, and this court is not bound by the district court's interpretation. State v. Bryan, 281 Kan. 157, 159, 130 P.3d 85 (2006).
K.S.A.2006 Supp. 21-4614 addresses jail time credit and provides in relevant part:
"In any criminal action in which the defendant is convicted upon a plea of guilty or no contest or trial by court or jury or upon completion of an appeal, the judge, if the judge sentences the defendant to confinement, shall direct that for the purpose of computing defendant's sentence and 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 sentencing order of the journal entry of judgment or the judgment form, whichever is delivered with the defendant to the correctional institution, such date shall be established to reflect and shall be computed as an allowance for the time which the defendant has spent incarcerated pending the disposition of the defendant's case."
This statute makes it clear that a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to credit for "the time which the defendant has spent incarcerated pending disposition of the defendant's case." Confusion arises, however, when the defendant is incarcerated for more than one case at the same time, especially when the separate cases are pending in more than one district. Both Prebble and the State cite four cases interpreting how K.S.A.2006 Supp. 21-4614 should be applied when the defendant has separate cases pending in different districts.
In Campbell v. State, 223 Kan. 528, 575 P.2d 524 (1978), the defendant was charged in Reno County with two felonies but was arrested in Barton County on unrelated felony charges. The defendant remained in the Barton County jail until he was sentenced in that case, and at sentencing he received credit for the time spent in jail pending disposition of the case. The defendant was then transported to Reno County where he was convicted of the Reno County charges. At sentencing in Reno County, the defendant requested credit for the time he was held in the Barton County jail and argued that the Reno County charges were pending against him during the time he was held in Barton County. The district court denied the defendant's request.
On appeal, the court held that 21-4614 requires a sentencing court to give the defendant credit for each day spent in jail solely on account of the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced. However, the defendant is not entitled to credit on a sentence for time which the defendant has spent in jail on other charges. Under the facts of the case, the court reasoned that the time the defendant had spent in the Barton County jail was not solely on account of the Reno County charges for which he was being sentenced. Accordingly, the defendant was not entitled to credit in the Reno County case for the time spent in the Barton County jail. 223 Kan. at 530-31, 575 P.2d 524.
In State v. Calderon, 233 Kan. 87, 661 P.2d 781 (1983), the defendant abducted an 11-year-old boy in Riley County and drove to a farm located in Pottawatomie County where the defendant sodomized the boy. The defendant was subsequently charged in Riley County with kidnapping and in Pottawatomie County with aggravated criminal sodomy. The defendant was held in the Riley County jail for approximately 3 months pending disposition of the kidnapping charge, and he ultimately pled no contest and was sentenced to prison. The following year, the defendant was returned from the state penitentiary to Pottawatomie County to answer the charge of aggravated criminal sodomy. He was ultimately tried and convicted. At sentencing, the defendant requested credit for the 3 months he had spent in the Riley County jail, but the district court denied the jail time credit.
On appeal, the court held the provisions of 21-4614 are mandatory and require a sentencing court to give the defendant credit for time spent in jail solely on account of the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced. Under the facts of the case, the court reasoned that the defendant had not been held in the Riley County jail solely on account of the Pottawatomie County charge, and therefore the defendant was not entitled to credit in the Pottawatomie County case for the time he had spent in the Riley county jail. 233 Kan. at 97-98, 661 P.2d 781.
In State v. Taylor, 24 Kan.App.2d 80, 941 P.2d 954, rev. denied 262 Kan. 969 (1997), the defendant was charged in Harvey County, Reno County, and Sedgwick County with indecent liberties with a child involving the same child. The defendant was sentenced to prison in the Harvey and Reno County cases and received jail time credit. He was then transferred to Sedgwick County where he pled guilty and received a prison sentence. On appeal from the Sedgwick County se...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dunn
...he was only held on a detainer or warrant in the other cases. In support, Dunn cites State v. Prebble, 37 Kan.App.2d 327, Syl. ¶ 2, 152 P.3d 1245 (2007), in which a panel of this court held: “The defendant in a criminal case is entitled to credit for time which the defendant has spent incar......
-
State v. Ward
... ... distinct, and wholly unrelated charges. Smith, 309 Kan. at ... 981. Thus, if a defendant is entitled to jail time credit in ... one case, he or she is not entitled to credit for the same ... jail time in any other case. See State v. Prebble, ... 37 Kan.App.2d 327, 332-33, 152 P.3d 1245 (2007) ... Nevertheless, ... our Supreme Court has recently reconsidered its holding in ... Campbell. And Ward has filed a notice of additional ... authority, under Supreme Court Rule 6.09(a)(2) (Kan ... ...
-
State v. Neal, 107,736.
...of law, reviewable on an unlimited basis by this court. State v. Storey, 286 Kan. 7, 9–10, 179 P.3d 1137 (2008); State v. Prebble, 37 Kan.App.2d 327, 328, 152 P.3d 1245 (2007). The statutory basis for Neal's claim is K.S.A. 21–4614. That statute provides that in any criminal action in which......
-
State v. Veales
... ... State v ... Smith, 309 Kan. 977, 981, 441 P.3d 1041 (2019). Thus, if ... a defendant is entitled to jail time credit in one case, he ... or she is not entitled to credit for the same jail time in ... any other case. See State v. Prebble, 37 Kan.App.2d ... 327, 332-33, 152 P.3d 1245 (2007). But the statute does not ... specifically address what happens when a defendant is serving ... time on a consolidated case in which the court orders the ... sentences to be served concurrently. The issue arises here ... ...