382 P.3d 467
Kan. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2009 Andrew Storer pled guilty to aggravated robbery and marijuana possession; parties jointly recommended probation and the court imposed 36 months probation with an underlying 216‑month prison term if probation failed.
- At sentencing the judge orally stated Storer "will receive credit for time served," and the journal entry noted 254 pre‑sentence days in jail but awarded no credit.
- Storer spent additional custody time: 78 days in jail awaiting placement in a court‑ordered residential treatment program, 92 days in that program, and 92 days jailed after arrest on probation violations prior to revocation.
- After revocation the district court reduced the executed sentence to 120 months; Storer then filed a motion seeking additional jail‑time credit for time spent in custody related to the case.
- The State and the district court held the claim untimely because Storer did not appeal the original sentencing journal entry within the statutory postjudgment appeal period; the court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the district court had jurisdiction under K.S.A. 22‑3504(2) to correct clerical errors or oversights in judgments "at any time" where the court had not previously made a considered ruling on the jail‑credit issue.
Issues
| Issue | Storer's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a post‑revocation motion for jail‑time credit is jurisdictionally barred because no direct appeal was filed from the sentencing journal entry | The court retains jurisdiction to correct clerical errors or omissions under K.S.A. 22‑3504(2) "at any time," so Storer may seek credit now | Failure to appeal the sentencing journal entry within the statutory window forfeited appellate jurisdiction to consider the jail‑credit claim | The court held K.S.A. 22‑3504(2) can supply jurisdiction where the journal entry reflects a clerical error/oversight and the issue was not previously and specifically adjudicated by the district court |
| Whether jail‑time credit is a clerical error correctable nunc pro tunc or a judicial decision requiring direct appeal | The jail‑credit entry here was clerical/ministerial (number entry on form) absent any deliberate judicial determination | If a judge made a considered discretionary ruling on credit, a nunc pro tunc correction is improper and the decision must have been appealed timely | Court held that when the record shows no deliberative judicial decision on jail credit, filling in the journal is clerical and correctable under § 22‑3504(2) |
| Standard for summary dismissal of a jail‑credit motion under § 22‑3504(2) | Not argued separately; seeks full consideration | Motion may be dismissed only if the record conclusively shows no possible merit | Court held the district court may summarily dismiss only if the record and motion conclusively show the defendant is not entitled to relief; otherwise hearings are required |
| Whether Storer was actually entitled to additional credit based on record | Storer sought additional credit for various custody periods | State argued some or all days may not qualify because credit generally applies only to time held solely on the charge being sentenced, and sentences may run consecutively | Court found the record insufficient to resolve entitlement and remanded for factual hearings to determine which days qualify |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Potts, 304 Kan. 687 (Kan. 2016) (nunc pro tunc cannot correct a deliberate judicial decision)
- Book v. Everitt Lumber Co., Inc., 218 Kan. 121 (Kan. 1975) (nunc pro tunc limitations distinguishing clerical corrections from judicial determinations)
- State v. Hemphill, 286 Kan. 583 (Kan. 2008) (failure to appeal within statutory period generally deprives appellate jurisdiction)
- State v. Guzman, 279 Kan. 812 (Kan. 2005) (postappeal adjudication of jail‑credit claims)
- State v. Harper, 275 Kan. 888 (Kan. 2003) (reviewing jail‑credit issues raised after the direct appeal period)
- State v. Cockerham, 266 Kan. 981 (Kan. 1999) (awarding additional jail credit does not modify the sentence)
- State v. Lofton, 272 Kan. 216 (Kan. 2001) (jail‑credit claim does not necessarily render a sentence illegal)
- State v. Hopkins, 295 Kan. 579 (Kan. 2012) (awarding credit for time in residential treatment under some circumstances)
- Mburu v. State, 51 Kan. App. 2d 266 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015) (discussing timing and jurisdiction for appeals)
- Hooks v. State, 51 Kan. App. 2d 527 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015) (explaining rule that credit normally applies only to time held solely on the sentenced charge)