Court Opinion

ID: 9788390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:48:46.018905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:10.047256
License: Public Domain

*621Lewis, J.:
I agree with the trial judge and dissent from the majority decision.
Thomas was first convicted in 1980. At that time, K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 21-4608(3)(e) provided that in serving any sentence imposed consecutive to the 1980 sentence, Thomas would be entitled to credit on the new sentence for time served on parole or probation from the original sentence.
If I understand the facts correctly, Thomas spent most, if not all, of the time from his original sentence on probation or parole.
In 1990 and 1993, Thomas was convicted of new crimes and these sentences were imposed consecutive to his first sentence.
In 1983, the legislature amended K.S.A. 21-4608(3)(e) and deleted the provision giving credit for time served on probation or
Thomas argues that he is entitled to credit for time served on probation or parole as mandated by the law in effect on the date of his sentence. The question is whether the legislature can take away credits earned by Thomas under the law as it existed when he was convicted.
The majority states that the amendment in 1983 of21-4608(3)(e) ehminated credits earned by Thomas under the law as it existed when he was originally sentenced.
I disagree. Thomas, when convicted in 1980, was, under law, entitled to credit on any new consecutive sentence for time served on parole from the original sentence. I do not agree that the legislature can take away credits already earned or guaranteed by the law in effect at the time of the conviction. I am unable to rationally distinguish this case from Stansbury v. Hannigan, 265 Kan. 404, 960 P.2d 227 (1998); Bankes v. Simmons, 265 Kan. 341, 963 P.2d 412 (1998); or Garner v. Nelson, 25 Kan. App. 2d 394, 963 P.2d 1242 (1998).
In those decisions, it was held that the Department of Corrections could not change its regulations and take away good time credits already earned under the regulations that existed at the time of the petitioner’s conviction. I would apply the same reasoning to this case to hold that the legislature cannot take away credit earned under the law as it existed at the time of Thomas’ original convic*622tion. I would affirm the trial court’s decision on credit for time served on parole.