State v. Jones ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                          NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
    No. 124,432
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
    STATE OF KANSAS,
    Appellee,
    v.
    DAVID PAUL JONES,
    Appellant.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Appeal from Geary District Court; COURTNEY D. BOEHM, judge. Opinion filed July 22, 2022.
    Affirmed.
    Submitted by the parties for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-6820(g) and
    (h).
    Before BRUNS, P.J., ATCHESON and ISHERWOOD, JJ.
    PER CURIAM: David Paul Jones appeals the district court's determination that he is
    not entitled to a day of jail credit for the approximately 13 hours he spent in jail. We
    granted Jones' motion for summary disposition under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2022
    Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48). Based on our review of the record, we affirm the district court's
    decision.
    After Jones entered into a plea agreement with the State, he pled no contest to one
    count each of aggravated assault, aggravated endangering a child, and criminal damage to
    property. The district court subsequently sentenced Jones to 33 months in prison but
    suspended the sentence and placed him on probation for a period of 24 months. The
    1
    district court also ruled that Jones is not entitled to receive a day of jail credit for the
    approximately 13 hours he spent in jail on August 31, 2020.
    On appeal, the sole issue presented is whether the district court erred for not
    granting him a day of jail time credit for the 13 hours or so he spent in jail. See K.S.A.
    2021 Supp. 21-6615(a) (a defendant is to receive a credit against a sentence of "an
    allowance for the time which the defendant has spent incarcerated pending the disposition
    of the defendant's case"). In his motion for summary disposition, Jones candidly cites
    State v. Peterson, 
    29 Kan. App. 2d 792
    , 794, 
    31 P.3d 317
     (2001), for the proposition that
    "absent specific statutory authority, a 'day' is defined as a 24-hour period." Accordingly,
    we conclude that it is appropriate to affirm the district court. In doing so, we do not
    address how a partial day of pretrial detention might be treated under other circumstances
    that are not at issue in this case.
    Affirmed.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 124432

Filed Date: 7/22/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/22/2022