Title: State v. Hopkins

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

1 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 100,851 
 
STATE OF KANSAS, 
Appellee, 
 
v. 
 
HEATHER HOPKINS, 
Appellant. 
 
 
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 
 
1. 
 
When interpreting a statute, the fundamental rule to which all other rules are 
subordinate is that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. 
When language is plain and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to statutory 
construction. An appellate court merely interprets the language as it appears; it is not free 
to speculate and cannot read into the statute language not readily found there. 
 
2. 
 
Under the facts of this case, the district court erred in refusing to award the 
defendant jail time credit toward her robbery case's sentence for her residential drug 
abuse treatment received while on probation as authorized under K.S.A. 21-4614a. While 
the residential treatment was only ordered as a condition of probation in her cocaine 
possession case per Senate Bill 123 (K.S.A. 21-4729), we hold that the treatment need 
not be ordered in the same case in which the jail time credit is sought. 
 
 
Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion filed September 4, 
2009. Appeal from Reno District Court; RICHARD J. ROME, judge. Opinion filed September 28, 2012. 
Judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming and remanding to the district court is reversed. Judgment of 
the district court is reversed and remanded with directions. 
 
2 
 
 
 
Matthew J. Edge, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause, and Carl Folsom, III, 
was on the brief for appellant. 
 
 
Thomas R. Stanton, deputy district attorney, argued the cause, and Stephen D. Maxwell, senior 
assistant district attorney, Keith E. Schroeder, district attorney, and Steve Six, attorney general, were on 
the brief for appellee. 
 
The opinion of the court was delivered by 
 
 
NUSS, C.J.:  We must determine whether probationer Heather Hopkins is entitled 
to jail time credit toward a sentence for the time she spent in a residential drug abuse 
treatment facility when her sojourn had not been ordered as a condition of probation in 
the case where that prison sentence had been imposed. Hopkins was serving probation in 
two different cases. She was statutorily required—and ordered as a condition of 
probation—to complete drug abuse treatment in the case involving a conviction for 
cocaine possession. But drug treatment was not statutorily required, or ordered as a 
condition of probation, in the case where her convictions concerned nondrug offenses. 
 
 
Hopkins failed to complete her mandatory drug treatment, and the district court 
revoked her probation in both cases. Hopkins admits she is statutorily barred from 
receiving jail time credit toward her sentence in her cocaine case. But she argues she is 
not so barred in her nondrug offense case. 
 
 
Both the district court and the Court of Appeals disagreed with Hopkins. We 
granted her petition for review under K.S.A. 20-3018(b) on this issue of first impression. 
Under the circumstances of this case, we now reverse. 
 
 
3 
 
FACTS 
 
The essential facts are straightforward. For Heather Hopkins' conviction of 
possession of cocaine, she was sentenced to 18 months' probation with an underlying 
sentence of 11 months. In accordance with the legislative scheme known as Senate Bill 
123 (S.B. 123), L. 2003, ch 135, sec. 1, she was also ordered to complete mandatory drug 
abuse treatment as a nonprison sanction per K.S.A. 21-4729. See State v. Preston, 287 
Kan. 181, 184-85, 195 P.3d 240 (2008). 
 
 
Two months later Hopkins was sentenced in a different case for convictions of 
attempted aggravated robbery and obstruction of legal process. She received 36 months' 
probation with an underlying sentence of 41 months. This robbery case's sentence was 
ordered to run consecutive to her previously imposed sentence in her cocaine possession 
case. Completion of mandatory drug treatment under S.B. 123 obviously was not ordered, 
but the following provision appeared in her "Order of Intensive Supervision Probation": 
 
"15. Agree to enter into evaluation, counseling, or treatment as directed by the Intensive 
Supervision Officer. Comply with all recommendations as clinically indicated. Costs and 
arrangements for payments are the defendant's responsibility." 
 
 
Hopkins absconded from her supervised probation after some period of drug abuse 
inpatient treatment. The State then moved to revoke probation in both cases. At the 
revocation hearing Hopkins stipulated to absconding, which violated her probation. She 
also admitted that per K.S.A. 21-4603d(n) she was barred from receiving jail time 
credit—toward her cocaine case's sentence—for her treatment period. But she claimed 
there was no bar to the treatment period being credited toward her robbery case's 
sentence. 
 
 
The district court denied her request, revoked probation in both cases, and ordered 
her to serve the two underlying sentences (41 months and 11 months) consecutively. The 
 
4 
 
Court of Appeals affirmed the district court, holding there was no evidence that inpatient 
treatment was actually recommended by Hopkins' probation officer or imposed as a 
condition of probation in the robbery case. State v. Hopkins, No. 100,851, 2009 WL 
2902586, at *1 (Kan. App. 2009) (unpublished opinion). 
 
ANALYSIS 
 
Issue:  A probationer is entitled to jail time credit toward a sentence for time spent in a 
residential drug abuse treatment facility when the sojourn had not been ordered as a 
condition of probation in the case where that prison sentence had been imposed. 
 
Standard of Review 
 
 
This issue requires us to interpret probation statutes. Statutory interpretation is a 
question of law, and our review is unlimited. Accordingly we are not bound by the lower 
courts' interpretations. State v. Malmstrom, 291 Kan. 876, Syl. ¶ 1, 249 P.3d 1 (2011). 
When interpreting statutes we are mindful that  
 
"[t]he fundamental rule to which all other rules are subordinate is that the intent 
of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. When language is plain and 
unambiguous, there is no need to resort to statutory construction. An appellate court 
merely interprets the language as it appears; it is not free to speculate and cannot read 
into the statute language not readily found there." Zimmerman v. Board of Wabaunsee 
County Comm’rs, 289 Kan. 926, Syl. ¶ 3, 218 P.3d 400 (2009). 
 
Discussion 
 
 
The right to jail time credit is statutory. State v. Theis, 262 Kan. 4, 7, 936 P.2d 710 
(1997). Typically a probationer may receive credit for time served in a residential facility 
while on probation. This general rule is set out at K.S.A. 21-4614a(a), which states: 
 
 
5 
 
"In any criminal action in which probation, assignment to a conservation camp or 
assignment to community corrections is revoked and the defendant is sentenced to 
confinement, for the purpose of computing the defendant's sentence and parole eligibility 
and conditional release dates, the defendant's sentence is to be computed from a date, 
hereafter to be specifically designated in the sentencing order of the journal entry of 
judgment or the judgment form delivered with the defendant to the correctional 
institution. Such date shall be established to reflect and shall be computed as an 
allowance for the time which the defendant has spent in a residential facility while on 
probation, assignment to a conservation camp or assignment to community correctional 
residential services program. The commencing date of such sentence shall be used as the 
date of sentence and all good time allowances as are authorized by law are to be allowed 
on such sentence from such date as though the defendant were actually incarcerated in a 
correctional institution. Such credit is not to be considered to reduce the minimum or 
maximum terms of confinement authorized by law for the offense of which the defendant 
has been convicted." (Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 21-4614a(a). 
 
 
By contrast, as Hopkins admitted to the district court and again on appeal, a 
probationer in S.B. 123 cases is not eligible for jail time credit when ordered to 
participate in a certified drug abuse treatment program. More specifically, under K.S.A. 
21-4603d(n), "[t]he amount of time spent participating in such program shall not be 
credited as service on the underlying prison sentence." We have held that a S.B. 123 
probationer was ineligible for jail time credit because the specific prohibition against 
credit in K.S.A. 21-4603d(n) trumped the general rule authorizing credit contained in 
K.S.A. 21-4614a(a). Preston, 287 Kan. at 184-85. 
 
 
These two statutes overlap for Hopkins because the court revoked probation in 
both her robbery and her cocaine cases. In the latter case, she was ordered to complete 
drug abuse treatment in a residential facility as a condition of probation. While no such 
order was specifically made in her robbery case, Hopkins again asks for jail time credit 
toward that particular sentence for her cocaine case-ordered stay in the residential 
facility. 
 
6 
 
 
 
Hopkins first argues that the language in her robbery case's probation order is 
sufficient to meet this alleged "condition of probation" requirement. Failing that, she 
argues that the plain language of K.S.A. 21-4614a(a) does not require that residential 
drug abuse treatment be a condition of probation for a defendant to receive jail credit for 
time spent in a treatment facility. Rather, "[t]he statute [only] requires jail credit be 
assessed for time spent in the facility 'while on probation.'" (Emphasis added.) She 
contends the Court of Appeals was therefore wrong to require residential drug abuse 
treatment as a condition of probation in the robbery case before she could receive credit 
toward that case's sentence. 
 
 
The State responds that Hopkins is barred from jail time credit in her robbery case 
because inpatient drug treatment is required as a condition of probation, and it simply 
was not ordered there. According to the State, the opening words of K.S.A. 21-
4614a(a)—"[i]n any criminal action"—indicate that the treatment must be ordered as a 
condition of probation in the same case for which jail time credit is sought. More 
specifically, it argues this statutory language only addresses a single criminal action and, 
for Hopkins to receive credit, the statute would need to read "in any criminal action or 
combinations of criminal actions for which a defendant might be on probation at one 
time." (Emphasis added.) 
 
 
We disagree with the State. K.S.A. 21-4614a(a) broadly grants a probationer jail 
time credit in "any criminal action in which probation . . . is revoked," for the time "spent 
in a residential facility while on probation." The statute simply contains no express 
requirement that the time spent in the residential facility be ordered in the same case in 
which jail time credit is sought. We decline the State's invitation to read this limiting, i.e., 
excepting, language into 21-4614a(a). See State v. Nambo, 294 Kan. __, __, 281 P.3d 
525, 528 (2012) ("An appellate court 'cannot read into the statute language not readily 
found there.'"). 
 
7 
 
 
 
Our conclusion is further supported by the language limiting the exception to jail 
time credit that is contained in K.S.A. 21-4603d(n). Subsection (n) provides that after the 
court orders defendant's participation in the certified drug abuse treatment program, but  
 
"the defendant . . . demonstrates the offenders' refusal to comply with or participate in the 
treatment program, . . . the defendant shall be subject to revocation of probation and the 
defendant shall serve the underlying sentence as established in K.S.A. 21-4705 
[sentencing guidelines grid for drug crimes] and amendments thereto." (Emphasis added.) 
 
 
This theme is repeated later in the subsection:  "[t]he amount of time spent 
participating in such program shall not be credited as service on the underlying prison 
sentence," i.e., as established by the sentencing guidelines grid for drug crimes contained 
in K.S.A. 21-4705. (Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 21-4603d(n). In short, by denying credit 
for time served only on the "underlying sentence," the Kansas Legislature limited the jail 
time credit exception contained in 21-4603d(n) to the same criminal (and drug offense-
based) action in which the drug treatment program was imposed. 
 
 
Finally, in this subsection of K.S.A. 21-4603d the Kansas Legislature showed that 
it knew how to create an exception to the broad grant of jail time credit for probationers 
found in 21-4614a(a)—to deny credit for a probationer's stay in the court-ordered drug 
treatment program under S.B. 123. So we assume that the legislature did not intend to 
include a similar exception or limitation in K.S.A. 21-4614a(a), i.e., to deny jail time 
credit for a probationer's stay in a treatment program unless that time was ordered—as a 
condition of probation—in the same case in which the credit is sought. See State v. 
Nambo, 294 Kan. at ___ (citing cases:  "Zimmerman, 289 Kan. at 974 [when legislature 
has demonstrated through statutory language that it knows how to preempt with the 
Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC), its failure to preempt the KCC in another 
statute's language strongly suggests that there it did not so intend]; In re W.H., 274 Kan. 
 
8 
 
813, 823, 57 P.3d 1 [2002] [Because consecutive sentences are expressly permitted in the 
Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act of the adult criminal code but not for the Kansas 
Juvenile Justice Code (KJJC), '[w]e conclude that the Kansas Legislature by its exclusion 
regarding consecutive sentences did not authorize the imposition of consecutive 
sentences under the KJJC.']; Halley v. Barnabe, 271 Kan. 652, 661, 24 P.3d 140 [2001] 
[Where no savings clause exists in the Kansas Revised Limited Liability Company Act 
(KRLLCA) but does in the Kansas Revised Uniform Partnership Act, had the legislature 
intended the same result in the KRLLCA, 'it is clear that it knew how to do so.'].") 
 
 
The State finally suggests that a decision of this court cited by the Court of 
Appeals panel supports the State's argument that inpatient treatment must be ordered as a 
condition of probation. State v. Theis, 262 Kan. 4. According to the State, it logically 
follows that treatment must be ordered in the same case in which a probationer requests 
jail time credit toward his or her sentence. 
 
 
Hopkins admits that the Theis defendant had been ordered to submit to inpatient 
drug treatment as a condition of probation. But she again argues K.S.A. 21-4614a does 
not require this to obtain jail time credit for a stay in such a facility while on probation. 
So she contends Theis is distinguishable and of little guidance. 
 
 
We agree with Hopkins. In Theis, the defendant clearly had been ordered to 
participate in inpatient drug treatment at alleged residential facilities as a condition of 
probation. 262 Kan. at 9-10. But the appellate issue was whether the treatment facilities 
qualified as "residential facility[ies]" under K.S.A. 21-4614a(a)—not whether the 
treatment needed to be ordered as a condition of probation. Indeed, the beginning of the 
opinion impliedly makes this distinction: 
 
 
"This case requires interpretation of K.S.A. 21-4614a(a) in determining 
defendant's credit for time spent in an inpatient drug treatment program while on 
 
9 
 
probation. Was defendant in a "residential facility" while on probation? (Emphasis 
added.) 262 Kan. at 4. 
 
The Theis court's holding reflected the same distinction. After reviewing the two 
treatment facilities at issue, it concluded that Theis was "entitled to jail time credit under 
K.S.A. 21-4614a(a) for inpatient treatment in [the two facilities] as time spent 'in a 
residential facility while on probation.'" (Emphasis added.) 262 Kan. at 5. The holding is 
similarly described throughout the opinion. "Theis argues that 'residential facility while 
on probation' should include court-ordered completion of inpatient drug treatment. We 
agree." (Emphasis added.) 262 Kan. at 8. And "[w]e hold that Theis' inpatient drug 
treatment [at the two facilities] qualifies as time spent in a 'residential facility while on 
probation,' as provided in K.S.A. 21-4614a(a)." (Emphasis added.) 262 Kan. at 10. While 
the court also acknowledged that Theis' participation in the drug treatment programs 
"were conditions of his probation," this statement merely helped explain that "[h]e 
attended those facilities while on probation. These inpatient facilities are 'residential.'" 
(Emphasis added.) 262 Kan. at 10. 
 
 
In short, Theis held that jail time credit is available when a treatment program is 
ordered as a condition of probation. Theis did not hold that jail time credit is available 
only if a treatment program is ordered as a condition of probation. Accordingly, Kansas 
appellate court decisions holding otherwise have overread Theis, although perhaps 
understandably. As the Court of Appeals stated in State v. Taylor, 27 Kan. App. 2d 539, 
541-42, 6 P.3d 441 (2000): 
 
"The Supreme Court's language in Theis also appears to require an evaluation of 
whether Taylor's participation in the reintegration program was a condition of his 
probation. Although the statute does not include this as a criterion for application of the 
'residential facility' language, it is evident to us that the Supreme Court engaged in 
statutory interpretation or made a policy judgment by which we are bound. Presumably, 
as long as time in a 'residential facility' is a condition of probation ordered by the 
 
10 
 
sentencing judge, there is at least some minimal assurance that the program of the facility 
will be consistent with the goals of the probation itself." (Emphasis added.)  
 
See also State v. Black, 36 Kan. App. 2d 593, 595, 142 P.3d 319 (2006) (citing Taylor 
and determining first whether the defendant's stay in the residential treatment facility was 
a condition of probation); State v. Brown, 38 Kan. App. 2d 490, 492, 167 P.3d 367 
(2007); State v. Srader, No. 96,397, 2007 WL 2580500, at *2, 4 (Kan. App. 2007) 
(unpublished opinion); State v. Johnson, No. 92,179, 2005 WL 824047, at *3 (Kan. App.) 
(unpublished opinion) rev. denied 280 Kan. 987 (2005); State v. Jurgens, No. 89,988, 
2003 WL 22764465, at *2 (Kan. App. 2003) (unpublished opinion). 
 
 
In conclusion, the district court should have awarded Hopkins jail time credit 
toward her attempted aggravated robbery case's sentence for her time spent in residential 
drug abuse treatment. Although the treatment was ordered only as a condition of 
probation in her cocaine possession case, there is no statutory requirement that the time 
spent in such treatment be ordered in the same case in which the jail time credit is sought.  
 
 
Reversed and remanded for resentencing.