State v. Nettleton

1
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 118,034

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

PATRICK RAYMOND NETTLETON,
Appellant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Saline District Court; JARED B. JOHNSON, judge. Opinion filed September 7, 2018.
Affirmed.

Clayton J. Perkins, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

Anna M. Jumpponen, assistant county attorney, Ellen Mitchell, county attorney, and Derek
Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

Before STANDRIDGE, P.J., BRUNS and GARDNER, JJ.

PER CURIAM: Patrick Raymond Nettleton appeals to this court, claiming the
district court erred by not giving him credit for 54 days of intermediate probation
sanctions in each of his four cases. He argues the court should have given him 216 days
of jail credit for the 54 days he served in sanctions. But an offender is only entitled to one
day of jail time credit for each day spent in jail, so Nettleton's claim that he is entitled to
additional jail time credit is not persuasive. Accordingly, we affirm.


2
FACTS

Nettleton was placed on probation in September 2014 following his no contest
plea for misdemeanor theft in 14CR851. About a year later, he pleaded guilty under a
consolidated plea agreement to one count of aggravated battery in 15CR29 and to one
count of felony theft in 15CR527. At that plea hearing, Nettleton stipulated to violating
his probation in 14CR851.

The district court sentenced Nettleton to 16 months in prison for the conviction in
15CR527 and 20 months in prison for the conviction in 15CR29. The court ordered the
two sentences to run concurrently but granted a departure to 18 months of probation in
both cases. The court ordered Nettleton to serve his probation for 15CR527 and 15CR29
consecutive to his probation in 14CR851.

In December 2015, Nettleton pleaded no contest to one count of domestic battery
in a fourth case—15CR1037. The court sentenced Nettleton to 12 months in prison but
granted a departure to 12 months of probation. This sentence was ordered to run
consecutive to 14CR851, 15CR29, and 15CR527.

Less than a year later, in October 2016, the State moved to revoke Nettleton's
probation in all four cases based on allegations that Nettleton committed several
probation violations. Nettleton admitted to the violations, and the district court ordered
him to serve a 120-day sanction in prison for his violations. He ultimately only served 54
of the 120 days in prison for that sanction.

Finally, in May 2017, the State alleged Nettleton violated his probation again. At
that probation violation hearing, the district court found Nettleton was "not amenable to
probation," revoked his probation, and ordered Nettleton to serve his underlying
sentences. The court gave Nettleton credit for the 54 days of jail time he served as an
3
intermediate sanction for the earlier probation violations and applied the credit to
Nettleton's sentence in 14CR851.

ANALYSIS

On appeal, Nettleton argues the district court erred in calculating the proper
amount of jail time credit he was due. Whether the district court properly imposed a
sentence after revoking probation is a question of law subject to unlimited review. State
v. Huckey, 51 Kan. App. 2d 451, 454, 348 P.3d 997 (2015). To the extent Nettleton's
argument raises a question of statutory interpretation, this court's review is unlimited. See
State v. Collins, 303 Kan. 472, 473-74, 362 P.3d 1098 (2015).

Nettleton argues the district court erred when it failed to grant him 54 days' jail
time credit in only one case, 14CR851. Because he served 54 days in prison as
intermediate sanctions in four of his cases—14CR851, 15CR29, 15CR527, and
15CR1037—Nettleton claims the court was required to give him 54 days of jail time
credit in each of his four cases instead of just one. In support of his claim, Nettleton relies
on K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3716(c)(10), which states that an intermediate sanction must be
imposed concurrently when an offender serving multiple terms of probation concurrently
violates the terms of probation.

Nettleton acknowledges his argument was rejected by another panel of this court
in State v. Cook-Myher, No. 113,326, 2016 WL 2610237, at *3-4 (Kan. App. 2016)
(unpublished opinion), rev. denied 306 Kan. 1322 (2017). However, he argues Cook-
Myher was wrongly decided. We disagree. In Cook-Myher, a panel of this court rejected
the notion that K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 22-3716(c)(10)—the statute governing imposition of
intermediate sanctions—governs computation of jail time credit due and owing as a result
of time spent serving intermediate prison sanctions. Instead, the panel found K.S.A. 2015
Supp. 21-6615 applicable. Under this statute, the court is required to designate a date that
4
the sentence begins to run in order to "be computed as an allowance for the time which
the defendant has spent incarcerated pending the disposition of the defendant's case."
K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-6615(a). A defendant sentenced to incarceration must be given
credit for all time spent in custody "solely on the charge for which he [or she] is being
sentenced." State v. Calderon, 233 Kan. 87, 97, 661 P.2d 781 (1983). "'When sentences
are consecutive, the defendant must serve both sentences one after another, and the
defendant receives credit for each day served against only one of the sentences.'
[Citations omitted.]" Cook-Myher, 2016 WL 2610237, at *4. For these reasons, the panel
rejected Cook-Myher's argument that he should receive credit for a 61-day jail sanction
against each of his three consecutive sentences, finding he could not receive 183 days of
jail time credit after serving only 61 days. 2016 WL 2610237, at *3-4.

Like in Cook-Myher, Nettleton is not entitled to four times more jail credit than he
actually served. The district court did not err in assessing jail time credit only against
Nettleton's sentence in 14CR851.

Affirmed.