State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Richard Eugene Rael, Appellant. (2026)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Richard Eugene Rael appeals his award of jail credit in 23CR647, arguing the district court erred by denying him credit for time spent in jail on more than one case. Our review of the record shows Rael bonded out of custody in 23CR647 on September 12, 2023, and despite being in custody on other cases, his bond was never revoked. As a result, Rael is not entitled to the 151 days of duplicate jail credit he seeks. We, therefore, affirm the district court.

On August 15, 2023, the State charged Rael with interference with law enforcement in 23CR647 (Case 1). Rael was in jail from August 14, 2023, until he bonded out on September 12, 2023, for a total of 29 days. Based on our review of the record, there is no indication that a motion to revoke bond was ever filed in Case 1.

On September 18, 2023, Rael was charged with three felony and two misdemeanor offenses in case number 23CR782 (Case 2). He remained in jail from September 17, 2023, through October 24, 2023—37 days. Rael was returned to custody in connection with Case 2 on July 16, 2024, where he remained until sentencing on November 8, 2024, for an additional 114 days.

Rael ultimately pleaded guilty to single counts of interference with law enforcement in both Case 1 and 2, in exchange for the dismissal of any remaining counts and all additional cases. The district court sentenced him to consecutive prison terms of 16 months in each case for a controlling sentence of 32 months. Rather than award a specific amount of jail credit, the district court simply stated, “Rael will have all of his jail time credit that he's earned as allowed by law.” When the journal entry for Case 1 was filed it reflected a jail credit award of 29 days. The journal entry for Case 2 was filed at a later date and included 151 days of jail credit.

Rael timely appeals.

Standard of Review

Interpretation of a sentencing statute is a question of law, and the standard of review is unlimited. State v. Moore, 309 Kan. 825, 828, 441 P.3d 22 (2019).

Discussion

On appeal, Rael argues the district court erred by failing to give him the same 151 days of credit that it awarded in Case 2. In State v. Hopkins, 317 Kan. 652, 657, 537 P.3d 845 (2023), our Supreme Court applied what it identified as “the obvious and plain meaning of the words chosen by the Legislature” when drafting K.S.A. 21-6615 and held that a defendant is entitled to “jail time credit for all time spent in custody pending the disposition of his or her case.” The court decided State v. Ervin, 320 Kan. 287, 311-12, 566 P.3d 481 (2025), not long after and bolstered its decision in Hopkins by finding that K.S.A. 21-6615(a) required “the district judge to award one day of credit for each day that Ervin was incarcerated pending disposition of this case regardless of whether he received an allowance for some or all that time against a sentence in another case.”

In State v. Hill, 66 Kan. App. 2d 177, 180, 577 P.3d 670 (2025), rev. granted 321 Kan. 792 (2026), another panel of this court addressed an issue similar to that which Rael has presented to us for consideration. There, Hill spent 90 days in jail before he was released and remained on bond until his sentencing hearing. The district court determined that Hill was incarcerated for a period of time in Bourbon County on an unrelated case while his initial case was pending before the district court, so it awarded Hill 90 days of jail credit. 66 Kan. App. 2d at 178.

On appeal, Hill argued he should receive credit for the time he was in custody in Bourbon County in addition to the 90 days in jail the district court already awarded. The Hill panel denied his request and explained that “in order to receive jail time credit, the incarceration must be tied to the case in which the defendant is seeking to receive credit.” 66 Kan. App. 2d at 180. It specifically declined to extend Ervin to this context, stating: “[I]t would be inappropriate to expand its holding in an attempt to justify an award of jail time credit for a subsequent incarceration after a defendant posts bond, is released from jail, and remains on bond until sentencing in the case for which the defendant is seeking additional credit.” 66 Kan. App. 2d at 180. The panel “observe[d] that defendants released on bond are not incarcerated.” 66 Kan. App. 2d at 180 (citing State v. Urban, 291 Kan. 214, 220, 239 P.3d 837 (2010). The panel concluded that when Hill “was subsequently incarcerated in the Bourbon County jail in an unrelated case, Hill was no longer incarcerated in this case, and he is not entitled to any additional jail time credit.” 66 Kan. App. 2d at 181.

Rael was in custody for 29 days in Case 1 before he bonded out. Although he was subsequently taken into custody on Case 2, no motion to revoke his bond was filed in Case 1, there is no evidence in the record that indicates a hearing occurred, and there was no official revocation of his bond by the district court. Accordingly, there is nothing in the record to support the conclusion that the district court erred when it declined to award Rael an additional 151 days of jail credit.

Affirmed.

Isherwood, J.: