State v. Hopkins
285 P.3d 1021
| Kan. | 2012Background
- Hopkins was sentenced on cocaine possession to 11 months underlying with 18 months’ probation and mandatory drug treatment under SB 123.
- In a separate robbery case, Hopkins received 41 months underlying with 36 months probation; no SB 123 treatment was ordered in that case.
- Probation in both cases was revoked after Hopkins absconded during residential drug treatment; the State sought jail time credit toward both underlying sentences.
- K.S.A. 21-4614a(a) generally grants jail time credit for time in a residential facility while on probation; K.S.A. 21-4603d(n) bars credit for time spent in SB 123 treatment.
- Hopkins argued credit should attach to the robbery sentence despite SB 123 treatment being ordered only in the cocaine case; the district court denied this and remanded for consecutive confinement.
- The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding credit can apply to the robbery case even though the treatment was ordered only in the cocaine case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jail time credit applies to the robbery sentence for time spent in SB 123 treatment. | Hopkins argues 21-4614a(a) allows credit for time in a residential facility while on probation, regardless of which case ordered the treatment. | State contends credit is limited to the case in which treatment was ordered (SB 123), due to 21-4603d(n) and the language of 21-4614a(a). | Credit may apply to the robbery sentence despite SB 123 treatment not being ordered in that case. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Preston, 287 Kan. 181 (2008) (SB 123 treatment mandatory in certain probation cases)
- State v. Theis, 262 Kan. 4 (1997) (credit for inpatient treatment as residential facility on probation)
- State v. Nambo, 295 Kan. 1 (2012) (statutory interpretation; cant read into statute language not readily found)
- Zimmerman v. Board of Wabaunsee County Comm’rs, 289 Kan. 926 (2009) (statutory interpretation principle; legislative intent governs when plain)
- State v. Taylor, 27 Kan. App. 2d 539 (2000) (analysis of residential facility concept and probation conditions)