Retroactive Double-Dipping Ban on Jail Credits is a No-Go

Author: Staff Editor Anna Chou

State v. Channel, No. 129,134, (Kan. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2026)

Issue: Does statutory amendment to jail credit calculations violate the Ex Post Facto clause of the Constitution? 

Answer: Yes, because it makes punishment for the crime more burdensome after the crime itself was committed. 

Facts: Channel committed her crimes on February 8, 2022, and was sentenced on May 8, 2025.  At sentencing, Channel was awarded six days of jail credit from February 8 to February 14, 2022.  Channel appealed her sentencing credit because records show she was also in custody before her sentencing, though partially for other cases.  On July 1, 2026, the Kansas legislature amended the jail credit statute K.S.A. 21-6615(d) which changed Channel’s jail credit calculation.  Essentially, a defendant could no longer “double-dip” by applying their jail credits to multiple sentences, and each day of a potential jail credit now only counts for one case at a time.  This legislation applied retroactively to all pending cases.  Channel argued this amendment violates the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution because it increases her punishment after she committed the crime.  The State argued it is not a violation because the jail credit is not part of the defendant’s sentence and is only used to determine when the sentence begins.  

Discussion:  A law retroactively reducing a jail credit implicates the ex post facto clause because it makes Channel’s punishment more burdensome after she committed the crime.  The State argues the jail credit statute does not materially alter Channel’s position, but Channel is disadvantaged by the 2026 amendment because it eliminates the duplicative jail credit that she would have been entitled to at the time of her sentencing.  Applying the 2026 amendment to Channel’s sentencing causes her to serve more days under her sentence than she would serve under the previous jail credit statute in effect when she committed her crimes, resulting in an Ex Post Facto violation.  Due to the violation, the court moved to vacate Channel’s sentence and remand with directions for the district court to calculate Channel’s jail credit consistent with the decision in State v. Ervin. 

Key Authorities: 

Kan. Stan. Ann. 21-6615(d)

State v. Ervin, 566 P.3d 481 (2025) (holding jail credits may count for multiple sentences at the same time)