State of Kansas, Appellee, v. John B. Canada Jr., Appellant. (2026)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

John B. Canada Jr. appeals the district court's denial of additional jail time credit in one of his two consolidated cases. Based on our understanding of the current status of Kansas law, we find that Canada is entitled to all the time he was incarcerated while awaiting disposition of this case regardless of whether he was already awarded credit in another case. We thus vacate the district court's award of jail time credit and remand this case to the district court for a redetermination of the appropriate amount of jail time credit to which Canada is entitled.

Facts

This appeal involves two cases in which Canada was convicted of criminal offenses. The first case arose out of offenses that occurred on January 31, 2022, and the second case around out of a new offense committed on March 8, 2024. Canada entered guilty pleas to two counts in the 2022 case and to one count in the 2024 case. In the 2022 case, the district court granted him a dispositional departure to probation for a period of 24 months. However, Canada later stipulated to violating his probation by committing the 2024 offense. As a result, the district court revoked Canada's probation in the 2022 case and ordered him to serve his original sentence of 38 months in prison.

At Canada's sentencing in the 2024 case, the district court found him to have a criminal history score of B. Still, the district court granted him a durational departure from his presumptive sentence and ordered him to serve a seven-month prison sentence. The district court also ordered Canada's 2024 sentence to run consecutive to his sentence in the 2022 case. Although the district court granted Canada 174 days of jail time credit in the 2022 case, it found he was not entitled to duplicative credit.

Thereafter, Canada filed a timely notice of appeal.

Analysis

On appeal, Canada contends that he is entitled to the jail credit calculation under K.S.A. 21-6615, as interpreted in State v. Hopkins, 317 Kan. 652, 657, 537 P.3d 845 (2023), and subsequently clarified in State v. Ervin, 320 Kan. 287, 311-12, 566 P.3d 481 (2025). Specifically, Canada argues that he is entitled to an additional 164 days of jail credit while he was incarcerated awaiting disposition of his 2024 case. In response, the State contends that the district court appropriately awarded jail credit to Canada.

To the extent that this issue involves statutory interpretation, our review is unlimited. State v. Daniels, 319 Kan. 340, 342, 554 P.3d 629 (2024). Although it appears that this issue was not presented before the district court, he argues that we should consider this issue because it primarily involves a question of law. We note that the State does not address the question of preservation.

As a general rule, issues that are not raised before the district court generally cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Williams, 311 Kan. 88, 92, 456 P.3d 540 (2020). But we can review an unpreserved claim if it satisfies one of the available preservation exceptions. Ervin, 320 Kan. at 306. Here, we find that the resolution of whether Canada is entitled to additional jail time credit is necessary to serve the ends of justice and prevent the denial of fundamental rights. See State v. Brown, 65 Kan. App. 2d 663, 671, 570 P.3d 1278, rev. denied 321 Kan. 791 (2025). Consequently, we will review this issue on the merits.

The Kansas Supreme Court has held that changes in the law generally apply prospectively. State v. Jacobson, 319 Kan. 70, 77, 552 P.3d 1239 (2024). Likewise, defendants typically receive the benefit of the change in the law that occurred while a direct appeal is pending. 319 Kan. at 70. Moreover, the date of the crime usually determines which sentencing statute applies. State v. Juiliano, 315 Kan. 76, 80, 504 P.3d 399 (2022). More recently, our Supreme Court has determined that the change in the law relating to the application of jail time credit stemmed from its 2023 decision in State v. Hopkins and not from its 2025 decision in State v. Ervin. See State v. Romey, 321 Kan. 400, 419-20, 580 P.3d 1 (2025).

We note that the mandate in Hopkins was issued on January 19, 2024. In addition, the crimes relevant to this appeal were committed by Canada in January 2022 and March 2024. Likewise, we note that the sentencing hearing from which this appeal arises was held on January 2, 2025. As a result, we find that Canada is entitled to the change in the law articulated in Hopkins and later clarified in Ervin. See Romey, 321 Kan. at 419-20.

Nevertheless, the State argues that Canada is not entitled to benefit from the change in the law because of a statutory amendment passed by the Kansas Legislature that became effective in 2024. See L. 2024, ch. 96, § 7. But as this court has previously found, Hopkins and Ervin obligate a district court to “award an allowance for all time spent incarcerated pending the disposition of his case, even if that would result in duplicative credit, and even if that result would effectively eliminate the consecutive sentence required by K.S.A. 21-6606(c).” State v. Watie, 66 Kan. App. 2d 166, 171, 577 P.3d 674 (2025), rev. denied 321 Kan. 795 (2026). Hence—consistent with Watie—we find that the 2024 amendment does not prevent Canada from receiving additional jail time credit. See 66 Kan. App. 2d at 171.

Additionally, as this court has also found, the 2024 amendment to K.S.A. 21-6615 is not to be applied retroactively. In State v. Mitchell, 66 Kan. App. 2d 196, 204, 579 P.3d 970 (2025), rev. granted 321 Kan. 793 (2026), a panel of this court held that our “[L]egislature provided no indication that it intended the amended jail-credit statute to apply retroactively in any respect.” Although we are not bound by the Mitchell opinion, we find it to be persuasive on this question, and we adopt its reasoning here. We also pause to note that the statute was amended again by the 2026 Kansas Legislature, and that this amendment took effect on July 1, 2026. See L. 2026, ch. 62, § 1. However, because the State has not argued that the 2026 amendment is applicable to this appeal, we will not address it in this opinion. See Ervin, 320 Kan. at 311 (court declines to apply 2024 amendment on jail credit in absence of State's request to do so).

Furthermore, while we continue to appreciate the State's argument that Hopkins and Ervin were wrongly decided, our court is duty bound to follow the decisions of the Kansas Supreme Court. See State v. Patton, 315 Kan. 1, 16, 503 P.3d 1022 (2022). As the parties are aware, our Supreme Court recently rejected the argument that Hopkins and Ervin were wrongly decided. See State v. Zongker, 322 Kan. 137, 140-43, 586 P.3d 769 (2026). Accordingly, both the district court and this court must apply the holding in Hopkins as clarified by Ervin in this case.

Conclusion

In summary, we conclude that Canada is entitled to receive credit “for all time spent incarcerated while [his] case was pending.” See Hopkins, 317 Kan. 652, Syl. As clarified by Ervin, this means that Canada is to be awarded one day of credit for “each day that [he] was incarcerated pending disposition of [his criminal cases] regardless of whether he received an allowance for some or all that time against a sentence in another case.” See 320 Kan. at 311-12. Therefore, we vacate the district court's order regarding jail time credit in the 2024 case, and we remand this question to the district court for a determination of the appropriate amount of credit under K.S.A. 21-6615(a)—as interpreted in Hopkins and Ervin.

Sentence vacated and case remanded with directions.

Per Curiam: