349 P.3d 476
Kan. Ct. App.2015Background
- Freddie Hooks, Sr. was serving an indeterminate pre-1993 sentence (7½ years to life, aggregated to 8½ years to life) and had parole revoked on May 12, 2010.
- While in custody after parole revocation he was charged in Sedgwick County with possession of cocaine (10-CR-1650) and later sentenced to 20 months on December 16, 2010; the journal entry noted 208 days of jail credit.
- KDOC computed Hooks’ July 31, 2012 parole date on his indeterminate sentence and applied 208 days of credit in that computation; KDOC refused to apply those 208 days to the 20-month sentence.
- Hooks filed a K.S.A. 60-1501 petition arguing he was entitled to the 208 days credit against the 20-month sentence; the district court denied relief, finding KDOC correctly computed the sentence.
- On appeal, the parties agreed the material facts were not disputed (though key documents were absent from the record); the question was whether the 208 days properly credited belonged to the 20‑month sentence or to the indeterminate sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hooks) | Defendant's Argument (State/KDOC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hooks is entitled to 208 days jail credit on the 20‑month sentence | The sentencing journal entry granted 208 days credit and it should apply to the 20‑month sentence | KDOC already applied the 208 days to the indeterminate parole‑revocation term; credit cannot be applied to the 20‑month sentence because the time was served on the unrelated indeterminate sentence | Court held Hooks is not entitled to apply the 208 days to the 20‑month sentence; KDOC properly credited the indeterminate sentence |
| Whether the district court should have dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies | Hooks did not concede failure; raised merits instead | State argued Hooks failed to prove exhaustion, so dismissal required | Issue not preserved on appeal because State failed to object to inadequate findings below; appellate court did not reach exhaustion question |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Denney, 278 Kan. 643 (defendant not entitled to credit for time spent serving sentence on an unrelated case)
- Rice v. State, 278 Kan. 309 (standard of review for K.S.A. 60-1501 petitions)
- Fischer v. State, 296 Kan. 808 (objection required to preserve claim of inadequate findings)
- State v. Eddy, 299 Kan. 29 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- McGann v. McKune, 21 Kan. App. 2d 798 (parolee returned to serve remainder of original sentence upon revocation)
- McKinney v. State, 27 Kan. App. 2d 803 (KDOC responsible for computing release dates)