749 Days and a Sentencing Error: A Kansas Case Study into Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6615(a)

State v. Ervin, No. 126,747, 2025 WL 1088041 (Kan. Apr. 11, 2025). 

Author: Michael O’Keefe, Staff Editor

Issue: Did the district court err in calculating Ervin’s jail-time credit by failing to award credit for all days he was incarcerated pending disposition of his case, as required by Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6615(a)?

Answer: Yes. The district court erred by not awarding credit for all 749 days Ervin was incarcerated pending judgment in this case, as required under the plain language of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6615(a).

Facts: Javan Ervin was sentenced to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after 724 months. The court ordered that his sentence run consecutively to another case, 20 CR 2496. At sentencing, the court—after discussion with counsel—credited Ervin with 239 days of jail time, relying on the belief that he was already credited with time served in his prior case. However, the final journal entry documented Ervin had been jailed for 749 days pending judgment: 346 days from July 7, 2021, to June 17, 2022, and 403 days from June 18, 2022, to sentencing on July 26, 2023. The court only credited the latter 403 days, reasoning the earlier 346 had been applied to his other case. On appeal, Ervin argued that Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6615(a) and recent precedent State v. Hopkins, 537 P.3d 845 (2023), required credit for the full 749 days.

Discussion: Under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6615(a), a court must credit a defendant for all days incarcerated pending the disposition of that case. In State v. Hopkins, 537 P.3d 845 (2023), the Kansas Supreme Court rejected the previous rule limiting jail credit only to time served “solely” on the case being sentenced. Hopkins clarified that courts must apply credit for every day spent in custody awaiting disposition, even if the time overlaps with another sentence.

The State argued that Hopkins did not apply to complex, multi-case, consecutive sentencing scenarios. But the Court reaffirmed the plain meaning of the statute: it requires credit for all time spent in jail on the pending case, regardless of credits awarded elsewhere. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6615(a) plainly states, “[s]uch date shall be established to reflect and shall be computed as an allowance for the time that the defendant has spent incarcerated pending the disposition of the defendant’s case.” The Court found that the absence of language specifying which particular case prior jail time refers to leads to the conclusion that a defendant should be credited for all time incarcerated pending the disposition of his or her case. Arguments about “duplicative credit” or administrative difficulties do not override the legislative mandate. The Court found the district court misapplied the statute and remanded the case for correction of sentencing.

Key Authorities: Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6615(a) (mandating credit for time incarcerated pending case disposition); State v. Hopkins, 537 P.3d 845 (2023) (requiring full jail-time credit regardless of other case involvement).