State v. Watie Highlights “Absurd” Outcomes Possible under Ervin

State v. Watie, No. 127,509 (Kan. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2025). 

Staff Editor David Holt

October 14, 2025

Issue: May a defendant’s jail credits earned for time spent imprisoned be applied to sentences for two separate charges even if it effectively eliminates the consecutive sentence requirement?

Answer: Yes.

Facts: While on probation for a different case, defendant Patrick Watie was charged with and arrested for committing crimes unrelated to his first criminal case, including violating his probation.  He was subsequently held in jail from July 2022 until his sentencing in September 2023. Watie entered a plea deal on these new charges and was sentenced to 13 months in prison.  Due to Watie’s probation status, his sentence was required to run consecutively to any other sentences.  The district court thus did not award Watie any jail credit on this 13-month sentence, despite spending 13 months in jail, because he had already received the jail credit in his probation violation case.  Instead, the two sentences were to run consecutively. Watie appealed, arguing that the court should have applied his jail credit to his 13-month sentence.

Discussion: State v. Ervin interpreted Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6615(a) as requiring courts to award a defendant jail credit on a sentence “even if that sentence [runs] consecutive to another sentence” and the defendant has “already received credit for those days.”[1] The Court of Appeals held that Ervin controls despite the “absurd results” it produced in this case.[2] Further, the Court of Appeals opined that Ervin had “effectively eliminated the district court’s ability—and the legislature’s clearly stated intent—to impose” consecutive sentences.[3]

Key Authorities: Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6615(a); State v. Ervin, 566 P.3d 481 (Kan. 2025).

[1]State v. Watie, No. 127,509 at *6 (Kan. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2025).

[2]Id. at *4.

[3]Id. at 7.