Jamerson v. Heimgartner, 123015

James Jamerson was serving sentences from 2001 (including second-degree murder) and was resentenced in 2016 to correct illegally long sentences.
Before resentencing, Jamerson lost about 338 days of good-time credit (193 days withheld, 145 days forfeited) for disciplinary infractions.
Jamerson filed a K.S.A. 60-1501 habeas petition arguing K.A.R. 44-6-125(c) bars applying pre-resentencing forfeitures to a "new sentence conviction," so his lost good time should not count against the new sentences.
The Reno County District Court dismissed his petition on procedural grounds (and on the merits), and the Department raised additional procedural defenses including mootness after Jamerson was released to postrelease supervision.
The Court of Appeals declined to dispose of the case on procedural grounds, addressed the merits, interpreted the regulatory phrase "a new sentence conviction," and held Jamerson’s reading was not compelled by the regulation; it affirmed dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does K.A.R. 44-6-125(c)'s phrase "a new sentence conviction" include a resentencing that corrects an illegal sentence, entitling restoration of pre-resentencing good-time forfeitures?	Jamerson: resentencing is a "new sentence conviction," so prior forfeitures/withheld credit before the effective date of the new sentence cannot be applied.	DOC: the regulation does not cover resentencing to correct an illegal sentence; prior disciplinary losses remain valid.	The court: phrase does not unambiguously encompass resentencing for correction of illegal sentence; Jamerson's interpretation is not compelled; claim lacks merit.
May procedural defenses (mootness/res judicata) dispose of the petition?	Jamerson: focused on merits; release to supervision raises mootness but did not control review.	DOC: raised res judicata, mootness, and other procedural defenses to dismiss.	The court: declined to rely on mootness/res judicata; treated defenses as jurisprudential and decided the merits, affirming on substantive grounds.

Woessner v. Labor Max Staffing, 312 Kan. 36 (2020) (appellate review of regulation/statute presents question of law; no deference to district court on legal interpretation)
State v. Smith, 309 Kan. 929 (2019) (interpretation gives effect to plain language and agency/legislative intent)
State v. James, 301 Kan. 898 (2015) (avoid statutory/regulatory interpretations that produce implausible or absurd results)
Fisher v. Kansas Crime Victims Comp. Bd., 280 Kan. 601 (2005) (canon against rendering statutory language surplusage)
State v. Roat, 311 Kan. 581 (2020) (mootness should be applied circumspectly)