Dale M.L. Denney, Appellant, v. State of Kansas, Appellee. (2026)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Dale M.L. Denney timely appeals the district court's summary denial of his motion to hold a Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) employee in contempt of court for miscalculating how the jail credit he claims he earned should be applied in his consecutive sentences.

The facts surrounding Denney's convictions are well known to the parties. Since his incarceration for multiple crimes in 1993, Denney has filed over 60 appeals, with many lacking merits. This one joins the lot. This latest appeal is an attempt to find a KDOC employee in contempt of court for how she calculated the assignment of 230 days of jail credit between his two consecutively imposed sentences.

There are two types of contempt recognized in Kansas law. K.S.A. 20-1201. Direct contempt is defined by statute as “contempts committed during the sitting of the court or of a judge at chambers, in its or his presence.” K.S.A. 20-1202. All other contempts are indirect contempts, such as violations of court orders or other acts. See K.S.A. 20-1202; K.S.A. 20-1204a. The facts of this case fail to show either type of contempt applies. The KDOC employee was never in court and was not subject to a court order. Denney even acknowledges the district court had not ordered the employee to do anything.

Denney's argument fails to establish the requisite connection between the employee and the district court to initiate any contempt proceedings. To clarify: (1) The employee was not subject to any order of the district court, (2) the employee was not present before the district court to make her subject to direct contempt, and (3) no evidence suggests the employee failed to follow an order which would support indirect contempt proceedings under K.S.A. 20-1204a. Thus, there is no valid basis by which the district court could have found the employee in direct or indirect contempt. Because no valid authority exists to hold the employee in contempt, the district court did not err.

We have made an extensive examination of the record before us, including the district court's short but concise order reflecting Denney's motion is without any support in the record. The reasoning of the district court fully explains why Denney's motion failed. We find no fault in the district court's analysis.

Affirmed under Supreme Court Rule 7.042(b)(1), (2), and (3) (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 49).

Per Curiam: