1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 123,090

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

CLINT E. WOODS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; KEVIN M. SMITH, judge. Opinion filed October 1, 2021. 

Affirmed.

Kristen B. Patty, of Wichita, for appellant. 

Matt J. Maloney, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, 

attorney general, for appellee.

Before GREEN, P.J., CLINE, J., and BURGESS, S.J.

PER CURIAM: Clint Woods filed a K.S.A. 60-1501 petition, arguing he was 

entitled to additional jail time credit. The district court construed the filing as a K.S.A. 

60-1507 motion and denied it as successive and untimely in accordance with the rules 

applicable to K.S.A. 60-1507 motions. The parties agree that the district court erred in 

construing the filing under K.S.A. 60-1507 and that it should have been considered as a

K.S.A. 60-1501 petition. Because Woods brought the petition in the wrong county, the 

State argues that the district court's decision should be affirmed but for the wrong reason. 

This court has recently held that the proper course of action for a district court when 

faced with a K.S.A. 60-1501 petition filed in the wrong county is not dismissal, but rather 
2

transfer to the county where the petitioner is being confined. However, there is another 

ground for affirming the district court for the wrong reason—res judicata. Woods' K.S.A. 

60-1501 petition involves the same claims and same parties as two previous K.S.A. 60-

1507 motions, which were denied on the merits. Woods' present K.S.A. 60-1501 petition

is barred by res judicata. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2003, Woods pled guilty to second-degree murder in case 03CR94. The

Sedgwick County District Court sentenced Woods to 258 months in prison. 

Woods filed a K.S.A. 60-1501 petition in November 2019 in the Sedgwick County 

District Court. At the time of filing, Woods was incarcerated at the Norton Correctional 

Facility in Norton County. In the petition, Woods challenged the calculation of his jail 

time credit. 

The district court construed Woods' filing as one brought under K.S.A. 60-1507. 

Woods had brought four prior motions under K.S.A. 60-1507. Though these motions are 

not in the record, they are discussed in Woods v. State, No. 122,604, 2021 WL 2021521 

(Kan. App. 2021) (unpublished opinion), petition for rev. filed June 18, 2021. The district 

court denied the current filing as successive and untimely, as it was brought well after the 

one-year time limitation for K.S.A. 60-1507 motions. 

Woods appeals. 
3

DISCUSSION

The district court did not err in denying Woods' request for jail time credit.

Woods argues that the district court erred by construing his K.S.A. 60-1501

petition as a motion brought under K.S.A. 60-1507. The State agrees that the district 

court erred. 

Whether the district court properly construed a pro se pleading is a question of law 

subject to unlimited review. State v. Redding, 310 Kan. 15, 18, 444 P.3d 989 (2019). 

Courts interpret pro se pleadings based on their contents and not solely their titles. 310 

Kan. at 18. Because both the title and the contents of Woods' petition indicated that he 

sought relief under K.S.A. 60-1501, the district court erred by construing the petition 

under K.S.A. 60-1507. See Hooks v. State, 51 Kan. App. 2d 527, 349 P.3d 476 (2015)

(accepting a K.S.A. 60-1501 petition as an appropriate vehicle for a challenge to jail time 

credit calculation). 

The State argues that, even if the district court improperly construed the petition, 

the denial of relief was correct, albeit for the wrong reason, because Woods filed the 

petition in the wrong county. K.S.A. 60-1501 requires an inmate to file a petition in the 

inmate's county of confinement. Because Woods filed the petition in the county of his 

conviction (Sedgwick County) and not the county of his confinement (Norton County), 

the State argues that the district court properly dismissed the petition. 

The State is partially correct. Woods should have filed his K.S.A. 60-1501 petition 

in Norton County. In the past, this court has issued differing opinions as to whether a 

habeas petition filed in the wrong county should be dismissed or transferred. See Johnson 

v. Zmuda, 59 Kan. App. 2d 360, 364-65, 481 P.3d 180 (2021) (discussing cases). This 

court recently settled the issue in Johnson, where it held that "[t]he proper course for a 
4

district court when faced with a K.S.A. 60-1501 petition filed in the wrong county—i.e., 

the improper venue—is to transfer the case to the district court in the county where the 

petitioner is being confined." 59 Kan. App. 360, Syl. ¶ 3. The Johnson court held that the 

issue was one of venue rather than subject matter jurisdiction. Under Kansas venue 

statutes, when a petitioner files a civil case in good faith but in the wrong county, "the 

action shall be transferred to a court of proper jurisdiction of any county of proper 

venue." K.S.A. 60-611; Zmuda, 59 Kan. App. 2d at 365.

Even though a transfer of venue was appropriate, it is not necessary to reverse the 

district court and remand the case with instructions to transfer Woods' motion to the 

proper county. There is another basis for affirming the district court—res judicata. See 

Spry v. Pryor, No. 119,573, 2019 WL 638266, at *2 (Kan. App.) (unpublished opinion) 

(noting that "Kansas appellate courts have applied res judicata to 60-1501 actions 

successively raising repetitive legal challenges" and providing examples), rev. denied 310 

Kan. 1063 (2019). Although the parties do not discuss this issue in their briefs, it is 

within this court's discretion to raise the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata sua 

sponte. See State v. Parry, 305 Kan. 1189, 1191-92, 390 P.3d 879 (2017).

Courts will invoke res judicata to bar a successive claim where there have been 

prior proceedings and the following conditions are met: (1) The issues in the present and 

previous proceedings address the same claim; (2) the parties in the two proceedings are 

the same; (3) the claims in the current proceedings were or could have been raised in the 

prior proceedings; and (4) the prior proceedings resulted in a final judgment on the 

merits. Cain v. Jacox, 302 Kan. 431, 434, 354 P.3d 1196 (2015). 

Although neither party addressed this in their briefs, Woods has sought additional 

jail time credit on two prior occasions. 
5

The record shows that Woods filed a motion in April 2018 entitled "Order Nunc 

Pro Tunc," arguing that he was entitled to additional jail time credit. Woods asserted that 

he was arrested in connection with case 03CR94 on September 23, 2002, and held in jail

until being formally charged on January 24, 2003. He asked the court to award him 123 

days of jail time credit for the time he was held before being charged. The district court 

summarily denied the motion. In ruling, the district court noted that Woods was in jail 

during the time period in question because he had been arrested on a postrelease 

violation. The district court relied on State v. Calderon, 233 Kan. 87, 98, 661 P.2d 781 

(1983), for the proposition that "a defendant is entitled only to credit for the time held in 

custody solely on account of, or as a direct result of, those charges for which he is now 

being sentenced." Woods did not appeal the district court's decision.

In June 2019, Woods filed a "Motion for Jail Credit" making substantially the 

same argument again, although in that motion he requested 126 days of jail time credit. 

The district court's ruling on this motion is not in the record. Presumably it was denied 

because if it had been granted, there would be no reason for Woods to pursue the current 

action.

Both of Woods' prior motions raised the same claim that he was entitled to jail 

time credit for the time between his arrest on a postrelease violation and his formal 

charging in 03CR94. The claim was raised and ruled upon. The same parties were 

involved. The district court issued a final judgment on the merits rejecting Woods' claim. 

For these reasons, res judicata provides a basis for dismissing Woods' present 60-1501 

petition. See State v. Peterson, No. 122,318, 2021 WL 834006, at *3 (Kan. App. 2021)

(unpublished opinion) (holding that appellant's claim for jail time credit was barred by res 

judicata because the district court rejected the argument when it was raised in a previous 

motion and the appellant failed to appeal the district court's denial of his first motion 

raising the issue), petition for rev. filed April 5, 2021.
6

We find that the district court properly dismissed Woods' petition albeit for the 

wrong reason. It was improper for the district court to construe the K.S.A. 60-1501

petition as Woods' fifth K.S.A. 60-1507 motion. However, res judicata provides a basis 

for the district court's dismissal of the current claim. 

Affirmed.