×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Kansas Prisoners Entitled to Halfway House Credits
The Kansas court of appeals held that prisoners whose halfway house status is revoked are entitled to credit for the time spent in the facility, but are not entitled to credit for time spent on house arrest. Bradley Cordill, a Kansas state prisoner, was assigned to a community corrections program for 18 months. That placement was revoked and Cordill sent to prison. Cordill then filed a motion under K.S.A. 21-4614A in state district court seeking credit for the time he spent in the halfway house, on house arrest and in jail. The district court denied the motion.
The court of appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. The court held that Kansas prisoners are entitled to credit for time spent in any community corrections program under K.S.A. 75-5290. The court relied on State v. Brasfield , 22 Kan.App.2d 623, 921 P.2d 834 (1996) in reaching this conclusion. However, Cordill was not entitled to credit for the time he spent on house arrest.
Whether Cordill was entitled to jail credit under K.S.A. 21-4614A for time spent in a halfway house is an open question. The court held the district court erred in dismissing the claim and remanded the case for further proceedings. The district court was also instructed to award Cordill credit for 15 days he spent in county jail, as it had previously awarded only 8. See: State v. Cordill , 24 Kan.App.2d 780, 955 P.2d 633 (Kan. App. 1997).
The court of appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. The court held that Kansas prisoners are entitled to credit for time spent in any community corrections program under K.S.A. 75-5290. The court relied on State v. Brasfield , 22 Kan.App.2d 623, 921 P.2d 834 (1996) in reaching this conclusion. However, Cordill was not entitled to credit for the time he spent on house arrest.
Whether Cordill was entitled to jail credit under K.S.A. 21-4614A for time spent in a halfway house is an open question. The court held the district court erred in dismissing the claim and remanded the case for further proceedings. The district court was also instructed to award Cordill credit for 15 days he spent in county jail, as it had previously awarded only 8. See: State v. Cordill , 24 Kan.App.2d 780, 955 P.2d 633 (Kan. App. 1997).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
State v. Cordill
| Year | 1997 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 24 Kan. App.2d 780, 955 P.2d 633 (Kan. App. 1997) |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
STATE v. CORDILL, 24 Kan. App. 2d 780, 955 P.2d 633 (Kan.App. 10/31/1997)
[1] Court of Appeals of Kansas
[2] 76, 567[fn1]
[3] 24 Kan. App. 2d 780, 955 P.2d 633, 1997
[4] October 31, 1997.
[5] STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
v.
BRADLEY SHAWN CORDILL, Appellant.
[6] Ryan Kipling Elliot, assistant appellate defender, and Jessica R. Kunen, chief appellate defender, for appellant. Brian R. Sherwood, assistant county attorney, John P. Wheeler, Jr., county attorney, and Carla J. Stovall, attorney general, for appellee.
[7] *fn1 Previously filed as an unpublished opinion, the Supreme Court granted a motion to publish by an order dated February 4, 1998, pursuant to Rule 7.04 (1997 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 44).
[8] Bradley Shawn Cordill appeals the district court's denial of his motion to award jail credit pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4614a.
[9] Cordill pled guilty to misdemeanor theft and burglary. He was sentenced to a controlling term of 2 to 5 years and assigned to a community corrections program in Finney County for 18 months. The State subsequently moved to revoke Cordill's assignment to community corrections. The district court granted the motion and reinstated Cordill's original sentence.
[10] Cordill then filed a motion for additional jail time credit. He claimed that he should receive jail credit for the time spent in the Mirror Incorporated Drug Treatment Program and the New Chance Drug Treatment Program. The district court denied the motion, relying on State v. Williams, 18 Kan. App. 2d 424,
[24 Kan. App. 2d 781]
856 P.2d 158 (1993). Williams held that a treatment facility operating under the county's community corrections program could qualify under 21-4614a.
[11] After the district court's decision, the Williams decision was clarified in State v. Brasfield, 22 Kan. App. 2d 623, 921 P.2d 834 (1996). Brasfield makes clear that a treatment facility comes within the scope of 21-4614a if it is owned, operated, maintained, or contracted for by a community corrections program operating under the Community Corrections Act. K.S.A. 75-5290 et seq. The facility need not be controlled by the sentencing county. 22 Kan. App. 2d at 625.
[12] In this case, the district court relied on the fact that the treatment facilities mentioned in Cordill's motion were not under the control of Finney County. This decision was erroneous in light of Brasfield.
[13] Cordill further claims he is entitled to jail credit for time spent in house arrest in Wichita. House arrest does not meet the requirements for a residential facility or a community correctional residential services program under 21-4614a. Williams, 18 Kan. App. 2d at 431.
[14] Cordill also claims he is entitled to jail credit for time spent at Hope House in Wichita. While the Supreme Court held in State v. Babcock, 226 Kan. 356, 362, 597 P.2d 1117 (1979), that time spent in a halfway house does not qualify for jail credit under K.S.A. 21-4614, that decision predates the passage of 21-4614a. Babcock does not resolve the question of whether a halfway house can meet the requirements under 21-4614a.
[15] Finally, Cordill argues that the district court erred in giving him credit for only 8 days spent in jail. The State concedes that Cordill should have received credit for 15 days in jail.
[16] In summary, the decision of the district court denying Cordill jail credit for time spent in house arrest is affirmed. The decision of the district court denying Cordill jail credit for time spent at New Chance, Mirror Inc., and Hope House is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the journal
[24 Kan. App. 2d 782]
entry should also be corrected to reflect that Cordill will receive credit for the 15 days he spent in the county jail.
[17] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
[24 Kan. App. 2d 783]
[1] Court of Appeals of Kansas
[2] 76, 567[fn1]
[3] 24 Kan. App. 2d 780, 955 P.2d 633, 1997
[4] October 31, 1997.
[5] STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
v.
BRADLEY SHAWN CORDILL, Appellant.
[6] Ryan Kipling Elliot, assistant appellate defender, and Jessica R. Kunen, chief appellate defender, for appellant. Brian R. Sherwood, assistant county attorney, John P. Wheeler, Jr., county attorney, and Carla J. Stovall, attorney general, for appellee.
[7] *fn1 Previously filed as an unpublished opinion, the Supreme Court granted a motion to publish by an order dated February 4, 1998, pursuant to Rule 7.04 (1997 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 44).
[8] Bradley Shawn Cordill appeals the district court's denial of his motion to award jail credit pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4614a.
[9] Cordill pled guilty to misdemeanor theft and burglary. He was sentenced to a controlling term of 2 to 5 years and assigned to a community corrections program in Finney County for 18 months. The State subsequently moved to revoke Cordill's assignment to community corrections. The district court granted the motion and reinstated Cordill's original sentence.
[10] Cordill then filed a motion for additional jail time credit. He claimed that he should receive jail credit for the time spent in the Mirror Incorporated Drug Treatment Program and the New Chance Drug Treatment Program. The district court denied the motion, relying on State v. Williams, 18 Kan. App. 2d 424,
[24 Kan. App. 2d 781]
856 P.2d 158 (1993). Williams held that a treatment facility operating under the county's community corrections program could qualify under 21-4614a.
[11] After the district court's decision, the Williams decision was clarified in State v. Brasfield, 22 Kan. App. 2d 623, 921 P.2d 834 (1996). Brasfield makes clear that a treatment facility comes within the scope of 21-4614a if it is owned, operated, maintained, or contracted for by a community corrections program operating under the Community Corrections Act. K.S.A. 75-5290 et seq. The facility need not be controlled by the sentencing county. 22 Kan. App. 2d at 625.
[12] In this case, the district court relied on the fact that the treatment facilities mentioned in Cordill's motion were not under the control of Finney County. This decision was erroneous in light of Brasfield.
[13] Cordill further claims he is entitled to jail credit for time spent in house arrest in Wichita. House arrest does not meet the requirements for a residential facility or a community correctional residential services program under 21-4614a. Williams, 18 Kan. App. 2d at 431.
[14] Cordill also claims he is entitled to jail credit for time spent at Hope House in Wichita. While the Supreme Court held in State v. Babcock, 226 Kan. 356, 362, 597 P.2d 1117 (1979), that time spent in a halfway house does not qualify for jail credit under K.S.A. 21-4614, that decision predates the passage of 21-4614a. Babcock does not resolve the question of whether a halfway house can meet the requirements under 21-4614a.
[15] Finally, Cordill argues that the district court erred in giving him credit for only 8 days spent in jail. The State concedes that Cordill should have received credit for 15 days in jail.
[16] In summary, the decision of the district court denying Cordill jail credit for time spent in house arrest is affirmed. The decision of the district court denying Cordill jail credit for time spent at New Chance, Mirror Inc., and Hope House is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the journal
[24 Kan. App. 2d 782]
entry should also be corrected to reflect that Cordill will receive credit for the 15 days he spent in the county jail.
[17] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
[24 Kan. App. 2d 783]