State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Justin Quaid Walker, Appellant. (2026)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In January 2021, the State charged Justin Quaid Walker with multiple felonies in Reno County in Case 1, and the district court allowed him to be released on bond. While on bond, he was arrested for committing new crimes in a different county—Geary County (Case 2). Walker was held in Geary County on both his arrest in Case 2 and the violation of his bond in Case 1. After his sentencing in Geary County for Case 2 and later transfer to prison, in January 2024, the State transferred him back to Reno County to face his 2021 charges in Case 1. After the Reno County District Court accepted a guilty plea from Walker, it followed the plea deal's recommendations and sentenced Walker to a 194-month prison sentence on Case 1. However, the district court did not award Walker jail time credit for the time he spent in Geary County and prison before being transferred back to Reno County. Walker filed a motion for additional jail time credit seeking an extra 1,065 days of jail time credit in Case 1. The district court later held an evidentiary hearing where it denied Walker's request in part and granted it in part, awarding him one missing day but not the bulk of his requested credit. Walker timely appeals.

On our review of the record, we find Walker is entitled to the credit he seeks; however, we are unable to confirm on the record the precise number of days due to him. We remand for the district court to calculate and apply the necessary jail credit to Walker's Reno County sentence.

Factual and Procedural Background

In January 2021, the State charged Walker with multiple drug-related felonies that occurred on December 29, 2020, in case No. 21-CR-008 (Reno County, Case 1). Walker was arrested, placed in Reno County custody, then released on bond within days. A few months later, Walker violated the terms of that bond and was arrested but was again released on bond. Later still, while remaining on bond in Case 1, Walker committed new crimes in Geary County, resulting in criminal charges in case No. 21-CR-443 (Geary County, Case 2). As a result, the Reno County District Court issued a bench warrant for Walker's arrest after the State filed a motion to revoke his bond in Case 1.

Although the Reno County bench warrant was not formally executed until much later, Geary County law enforcement had arrested Walker on the new charges. The booking card for the Geary County Sheriff's Office clearly reflected that as of August 12, 2021, Walker was being held in Geary County for not only the new case but also on Case 1—the Reno County matter. Eventually, in Case 2 Walker pleaded guilty in the Geary County District Court and was sentenced in September 2022, to 84 months in prison and remanded to the custody of the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC).

For reasons unclear from the record, Reno County did not execute its bench warrant until January 18, 2024, and the Case 1 proceedings resumed. Ultimately, Walker pleaded guilty in Reno County. At sentencing on July 12, 2024, the district court chose to follow the State's sentencing recommendations, imposing a durational departure and sentencing Walker to 194 months in prison on Case 1 to run concurrently with his earlier sentence in Case 2. The district court awarded him just 18 days of jail credit—those days he was in Reno County custody in spring 2021 for his first bond violation.

On December 5, 2024, Walker filed a motion in Case 1 to correct his jail time credit. Specifically, he claimed he was due another 1,065 days of jail time credit stemming from his custody in August 2021 to his sentencing in July 2024. The State opposed Walker's motion, arguing he was not entitled to any additional jail time credit and that he already received 408 days of credit in Case 2. The district court held a hearing on Walker's motion where it granted Walker one additional day of jail time credit for the day of his initial arrest on Case 1. But the district court denied him any additional jail time credit.

Walker timely appealed the denial of his motion for additional jail time credit.

Walker Is Entitled to Additional Jail Time Credit

Walker argues that he is entitled to jail time credit in his Reno County case for all the time he spent in custody regardless of whether it was allocated to his Geary County sentence. He reasons that the change in the law established in State v. Hopkins, 317 Kan. 652, 537 P.3d 845 (2023) must apply.

The State disagrees, arguing the district court properly denied Walker's request. It contends that Walker's Case 1 is similar to State v. Thompson, 66 Kan. App. 2d 223, 579 P.3d 511 (2025), rev. granted 321 Kan. 794 (2026), where a panel of our court found that a defendant is not incarcerated pending disposition of a case when he is free on bond in that case. Here, the State argues that Walker was on bond in his Reno County case during the period for which he now seeks additional jail time credit.

Applicable legal principles

We must begin our analysis with a recitation of the applicable sentencing statute, K.S.A. 21-6615. Jail time credit issues involve statutory interpretation that presents a question of law over which appellate courts have unlimited review. State v. Daniels, 319 Kan. 340, 342, 554 P.3d 629 (2024). The most fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the Legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. State v. Keys, 315 Kan. 690, 698, 510 P.3d 706 (2022). An appellate court does not need to resort to statutory construction or legislative history unless the statute's plain language is unclear or ambiguous. State v. Betts, 316 Kan. 191, 198, 514 P.3d 341 (2022).

At the time Walker committed his Reno County crimes, K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6615(a) stated:

“In any criminal action in which the defendant is convicted, ․ such sentence is to be computed from a date, to be specifically designated by the court in the sentencing order of the journal entry of judgment. Such date shall be established to reflect and shall be computed as an allowance for the time which the defendant has spent incarcerated pending the disposition of the defendant's case.”

Moreover, when Walker committed his Reno County crimes in December 2020, the Kansas appellate court had long interpreted K.S.A. 21-6615(a) to mean that a defendant can only receive jail credit for time spent in custody “solely” on the charge being sentenced. Campbell v. State, 223 Kan. 528, Syl. ¶ 1, 575 P.2d 524 (1978). This interpretation banned duplicative credit for time spent in jail.

Then, in October 2023, the Kansas Supreme Court departed from its previous interpretation of K.S.A. 21-6615(a) to find that, under the plain language of the statute, a defendant gets credit for all time spent in custody pending disposition of the defendant's case. Hopkins, 317 Kan. at 656-57. Important to this case is the language in Hopkins which makes clear that the court was overturning the “solely on account of” rule established in Campbell because it lacked any basis within the plain language of K.S.A. 21-6615(a), and application of the rule revealed it to be unworkable and inconsistently applied. Hopkins, 317 Kan. at 657-59.

In response to this interpretation, effective May 23, 2024, the Legislature amended K.S.A. 21-6615(a)(2); the relevant portion of which reads:

“When computing the defendant's sentence, the following shall not be considered time spent incarcerated pending disposition of the defendant's case:

(A) Any time awarded as credit in another case when consecutive sentences are imposed on a defendant; or

(B) Any time spent incarcerated in another jurisdiction if no hold has been issued in such jurisdiction for the case being sentenced.” (Emphases added.) K.S.A. 2025 Supp. 21-6615(a)(2).

But our Supreme Court doubled down, and in interpreting the pre-2024 law, the court continued to find that a defendant gets one day of credit for each day in custody pending disposition of the defendant's case regardless of whether the defendant received a credit for some or all of that time against a sentence in another case. State v. Ervin, 320 Kan. 287, 311-12, 566 P.3d 481 (2025). Later, the Supreme Court in State v. Romey made clear that Hopkins was the case that changed the law from its Campbell interpretation. See State v. Romey, 321 Kan. 400, 419-20, 580 P.3d 1 (2025).

Following Ervin, the Legislature again acted to amend K.S.A. 21-6615 to remove the ability for defendants to receive duplicate jail credit. Effective July 1, 2026, K.S.A. 21-6615(a) remains as previously stated, but newly-added section (d)(1) now reads: “When consecutive sentences are imposed on a defendant, days spent in custody that are attributable to more than one case shall be credited only once against the aggregated consecutive term.” (Emphasis added.) Laws 2026, ch. 62, § 1. This new law also includes a broad retroactivity provision, noting it applies to all sentences, “whether pronounced before, on or after July 1, 2026, ․ and ․ any case posture [and] [a]ny judicial interpretations regarding application of jail time credit to consecutive sentences in conflict with ․ this section and the amendments ․ are superseded.” (Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 21-6615(d)(1).

How must we resolve Walker's challenge?

We are then tasked with deciding which version of K.S.A. 21-6615 applies to Walker's challenge. Generally, the date of the crime determines which sentencing statute applies. See State v. Juiliano, 315 Kan. 76, 80, 504 P.3d 399 (2022) (“The court sentences a person convicted of a crime in accordance with the sentencing provisions in effect when the person committed the crime.”); Romey, 321 Kan. at 417-18 (explaining that “[t]he legislature has amended the jail credit statute, but the version we considered in Ervin applies because it was in effect when [the defendant] committed the murder.”). But our Supreme Court has held that changes in the law apply prospectively, and defendants must receive the benefit of the change in the law that occurred while a direct appeal is pending. State v. Murdock, 309 Kan. 585, 591, 439 P.3d 307 (2019) (citing State v. Ford, 302 Kan. 455, 471, 353 P.3d 1143 [2015]).

In Walker's present Case 1 from Reno County, he committed his crimes in December 2020 and March 2021. At that time, the Campbell interpretation guided the district courts in calculating jail credit awards. But Walker was not sentenced until July 2024, after the mandate in Hopkins was issued on January 19, 2024. Walker is due any benefit resulting from a change in the law while his case was pending.

Most significantly, Walker's challenge differs from Romey, Ervin, and Hopkins in one vital aspect: his sentence in Reno County was to run concurrent with his sentence in Geary County, not consecutive to the earlier sentence.

We agree with Walker that the confusion between the changes in judicial interpretation and amendments to K.S.A. 21-6615 have minimal effect on the outcome of his present challenge. Applying Hopkins, which interpreted the version of K.S.A. 21-6615 applicable at the time of his crime, Walker must receive credit for all time spent in custody pending the disposition of his case.

First, Walker's sentences in Case 1 and Case 2 were to run concurrently—not consecutively—to one another, so the confusion regarding duplicate credit due defendants with consecutive sentences is simply inapplicable. Second, Walker's case is easily distinguished from Thompson.

In Thompson, a panel of our court found that the defendant was not “incarcerated pending disposition of his case,” as stated in K.S.A. 21-6615(a), because although he had been jailed pending resolution of a second case, he remained free on bond in the case on which he was sentenced. 66 Kan. App. 2d at 223. Because Thompson was on bond for that particular case, he was not in custody pending its resolution and did not qualify for any of his requested additional jail time credit in that case for the period during which he remained on bond. 66 Kan. App. 2d at 230 (citing State v. Graves, 47 Kan. App. 2d 808, 819, 278 P.3d 993 [2012]).

The facts before us are different. Although Walker was on bond on Case 1 in Reno County at the time he was arrested on Case 2 in Geary County, the jail record reflects that Reno County issued a hold on Walker for Case 1 after he was arrested on Case 2, presumably because of the bench warrant issued in Reno County. His bond surety was discharged and the State admitted that Walker was in its custody following his arrest in August 2021. Under the facts of this case, it appears that Walker was then being held pending disposition of both cases. So, the district court was not prohibited from awarding jail credit in Case 1 under K.S.A. 21-6615(a) because a hold was issued.

We acknowledge that Walker's custodial status was transferred from Geary County to KDOC following his sentencing in Case 2, but his “hold” from Reno County presumably continued. This fact is one that must be established by the district court, as we are not a fact-finding court, but we do not foresee a situation where a defendant is held in jail on two pending matters and when the first matter is resolved, the hold for the second pending matter simply vanishes into thin air.

Walker raises an important point, which is that the concern regarding duplicate credit does not arise with concurrent sentences, as there is “functionally only a single term of imprisonment—the longest sentence amongst the concurrent cases.” KDOC's own regulations specify that for inmates with multiple concurrent sentences, “[t]he sentence with the term requiring the longest time to be served in prison shall be the sentence controlling the guidelines release date.” K.A.R. 44-6-140(d).

In State v. Veales, a panel of our court addressed a situation where a defendant was given multiple concurrent sentences, but the district court only allocated the jail credit award to the shortest sentence. No. 124,320, 2022 WL 17544752, *6 (Kan. App. 2022) (unpublished). We explained that when the district court made the award,

“․ it created a situation in which the jail credit was, in effect, no credit at all. It rendered the statute meaningless. Because the statute mandates that credit be given for predisposition incarceration and that goal was not met, the court seemingly failed to follow the mandates of the statute.” 2022 WL 17544752, at *6.

Here, Walker was sentenced to 194 months of imprisonment in Case 1, nearly 2 years after being sentenced in Case 2 to 84 months in prison, with the intent of the court to run those sentences concurrently. By denying Walker the bulk of his requested jail credit in Case 1, his controlling sentence is one for which he received minimal jail credit, and he served nearly three years in custody that is ultimately unaccounted for. As explained by our court in Veales, this would render the jail time credit statute meaningless. 2022 WL 17544752, at *6.

In summary, Walker is entitled to the additional jail time credit he seeks. We reverse the district court's decision to deny him additional jail time credit and remand for the district court to make the appropriate findings regarding the dates he was in custody on hold for Case 1, and those days should then be credited to him.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Per Curiam: