State v. KingState v. King
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Briscoe
This is a probation revocation case in which defendant Michael King appeals an order denying: credit for time he served in the custody of community corrections while on probation. After concluding
In February 1986, King pleaded guilty , to three counts -of conspiracy to sell marijuana. He was sentenced to one- to two-year sentences on each count, the sentences to run concurrently, and was granted five years’ probation under the supervision of community corrections. The terms of his probation prohibited the
The issue as identified by the parties is whether the district court erred in denying credit for time spent in custody as a .condition of probation. However, the controlling question is: When the legislature passes a statute protecting a defendant’s right to credit for time served during probationary periods, does the statute apply to all sentences imposed in subsequent probation revocation proceedings? We answer this question in the affirmative.
King argues the action revoking his probation and the imposition of sentence which followed occurred after 21-4614a took effect and, therefore, 21-4614a should govern computation of his sentence. The State keys its argument to the commission of the conspiracy to sell marijuana counts and King’s subsequent sentencing on those counts in 1986. The State argues (1)
At one time in Kansas, all decisions to grant persons credit for time served in jail as a condition of probation were discretionary. See,
e.g., State v. Fowler;
238 Kan. 326, Syl. ¶ 5, 710 P.2d 1268 (1985) (citing
To determine whether 21-4614a, which became effective May 19, 1988, applies to the sentence imposed in the present case, we first look to the wording of the statute. It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that words in common usage are to be given their natural and ordinary meaning in arriving at the proper construction of a statute. Szoboszlay v. Glessner, 233 Kan. 475, 478, 664 P.2d 1327 (1983).
“(a) In any criminal action in which probation, assignment to a conservation camp or assignment to community corrections is revoked and the defendant is sentenced to confinement, for the purpose of computing the defendant’s sentence and parole eligibility and conditional release dates, the defendant’s sentence is to be computed from a date, hereafter to be specifically designated in the sentencing order of the journal entry of judgment or the judgment form 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 in a residential facility while on probation, assignment to a conservation camp or assignment to community correctional residential services program. The commencing date of such sentence shall be used as the date of sentence and all good time allowances as are authorized by law are to be allowed on such sentence from such date as though the defendant were actually incarcerated in a correctional institution.” (Emphasis added.)
In determining the scope of this statute’s applicability, we look to the statute’s introductory sentence which includes the following phrase: “In any criminal action in which probation ... is revoked and the defendant is sentenced to confinement.” (Emphasis added.) “Any” is defined as “one indifferently out of more than two: one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind: . . . one, no matter what one: every.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 97 (1986). Black’s Law Dictionary 86 (5th ed. 1979) states “[any] is often synonymous with ‘either,’ ‘every,’ or ‘all.’ ” Thus, using the common meaning of “any,” it is clear the legislature intended that the statute apply to every sentencing which occurs after probation has been revoked.
Under this reading of the statute, it becomes immaterial when the original crime occurred (the conspiracies) or when the time was served in jail as a condition of probation. If the legislature
Here, King committed the conspiracies to sell marijuana and served the time at issue before 21-4614a was effective, but when his probation was revoked and his sentence imposed the statute was effective. The statute makes credit for time served during probation mandatory rather than discretionary and discloses legislative intent to give criminal defendants placed on probation credit for all time spent in custody during probationary periods. “The statute places no limits, conditions, or discretion upon the grant of credit.” Brodie v. State, 1 Kan. App. 2d 540, 542, 571 P.2d 53 (1977). Therefore, the statute in effect at the time the sentence was imposed following revocation should govern.
Further, there is nothing in the statute to indicate the time served during probation must be served after the effective date of 21-4614a. Indeed, the statute states the sentence is to be computed from a date that “shall be computed as an allowance for the time which the defendant has spent in a residential facility while on probation.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, the attempt to limit the statute’s coverage to govern time served after passage of the statute must fail.
The State’s reliance on
“This code has no application to crimes committed prior to its effective date. A crime is committed prior to the effective date of the code if any of the essential elements of the crime as then defined occurred before that date. Prosecutions for prior crimes shall be governed, prosecuted and punished under the laws existing at the time such crimes were committed.”
The State argues King’s conviction in 1986 occurred before 21-4614a was effective and, therefore, under 21-3102(4), the new statute should have no effect.
By its reliance upon 21-3102(4), the State is asking us to apply the law in effect when the drug conspiracies were committed.
The district court’s order denying credit is reversed and remanded with directions to modify King’s sentence to include 127 days of credit for time served in the custody of community corrections during probation.