Hooks v. State

17 Citing cases

  1. Spight v. Heimgartner

    360 P.3d 490 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015)

    This court recently held under similar circumstances that the State failed to preserve a similar exhaustion argument by failing to object to the lack of findings of fact or conclusions of law on that issue by the district court. Hooks v. State, 51 Kan.App.2d 527, 529, 349 P.3d 476 (2015). Given the limits on the warden's argument on this issue, we find that the warden failed to preserve this issue for appeal.

  2. Grammer v. Kan. Dep't of Corr.

    455 P.3d 819 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    The deference appellate courts give to a district court's decision on a K.S.A. 60-1501 petition turns on the contours of the arguments presented and the nature of the decision below. For example, when a petitioner challenges a district court's factual findings, an appellate court will uphold those findings if they are supported by substantial competent evidence and are sufficient to support the district court's conclusions of law. Rice v. State , 278 Kan. 309, 320, 95 P.3d 994 (2004) ; Hooks v. State , 51 Kan. App. 2d 527, 530, 349 P.3d 476 (2015). And appellate courts exercise unlimited review over—that is, they give no deference to—a district court's legal conclusions.

  3. Norwood v. Roberts

    53 Kan. App. 2d 772 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 3 times

    We review a district court's decision on a petition under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-1501 to determine whether the district court's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and are sufficient to support the court's conclusions of law. Rice v. State , 278 Kan. 309, 320, 95 P.3d 994 (2004) ; Hooks v. State , 51 Kan.App.2d 527, 530, 349 P.3d 476 (2015). Evidence is substantial when a reasonable person would accept it as sufficient to support a conclusion.

  4. Thomas v. Neosho Cnty. Dist. Court

    No. 22-3023-SAC (D. Kan. Feb. 11, 2022)

    , the Court notes that the Kansas Court of Appeals has recognized that a petition under K.S.A. 60-1501 is one way to challenge the calculation of jail-time credit. See Hooks v. State, 51 Kan.App.2d 527 (2015). And an individual who believes that a journal entry does not accurately reflect the concurrent or consecutive nature of one or more of his sentences may file a motion in state court under K.S.A. 22-3504(b), which provides that “[c]lerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors in the record arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time and after such notice, if any, as the court orders.”

  5. Miller v. Miller

    125,952 (Kan. Ct. App. Oct. 18, 2024)

    See, e.g., Hooks v. State, 51 Kan.App.2d 527, 529, 349 P.3d 476 (2015) ("The district court has the primary duty to provide adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record of its decision on contested matters" but parties "must object to inadequate findings of fact and conclusions of law to preserve an issue for appeal."). Justin asserts that this issue "was preserved at least by various motions filed by Caleb Boone and by argument in at least one hearing," but the record does not show where Justin joined such an argument before the district court.

  6. In re Marriage of Rrapaj

    126,386 (Kan. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2024)

    Kansas courts have also repeatedly held that an objection to alleged inadequacies in a district court's findings is generally required for preservation of issues sought to be appealed. See Hooks v. State, 51 Kan.App.2d 527, 529, 349 P.3d 476 (2015) ("The district court has the primary duty to provide adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record of its decision on contested matters" but parties "must object to inadequate findings of fact and conclusions of law to preserve an issue for appeal.").

  7. Woods v. State

    No. 123 (Kan. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2021)

    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.

  8. In re Marriage of Poggi

    No. 121,012 (Kan. Ct. App. Sep. 4, 2020)

    But Kansas courts have repeatedly held that an objection to alleged inadequacies in a district court's findings generally is required for preservation. See Ponds v. State, 56 Kan. App. 2d 743, 756, 437 P.3d 85 (2019) (holding that because the record did not preclude meaningful appellate review, the failure to object in district court to the adequacy of the findings meant this court would presume the district court made all necessary findings to support its legal conclusions); Hooks v. State, 51 Kan. App. 2d 527, 529, 349 P.3d 476 (2015) ("The district court has the primary duty to provide adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record of its decision on contested matters" but parties "must object to inadequate findings of fact and conclusions of law to preserve an issue for appeal."). Joseph also argues that Nancy has mischaracterized his appellate argument, which he claims challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.

  9. State v. Carlton

    No. 119,985 (Kan. Ct. App. Jun. 26, 2020)

    A defendant has a right to credit for time spent in custody while "being held solely on the charge for which the defendant is being sentenced." Hooks v. State, 51 Kan. App. 2d 527, 531, 349 P.3d 476 (2015). The record on appeal supports Carlton's assertion that he spent 1,193 days incarcerated pending conviction.

  10. State v. Jones

    No. 121,798 (Kan. Ct. App. Jun. 19, 2020)

    The calculation of release dates is the responsibility of the KDOC. See K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6606 (calculating credit for time spent in confinement); K.A.R. 44-6-106(a) (KDOC staff "shall have the authority to analyze and interpret the journal entry of judgment, the judgment form, and any other documents from the court to the extent necessary to execute the sentence and commitment"); K.A.R. 44-6-135a (2017 Supp.) (computing maximum sentence credit when consecutive sentences have been aggregated to previously imposed consecutive sentences; K.A.R. 44-6-135 (2017 Supp.) (computing prison service credit); see also Hooks v. State, 51 Kan. App. 2d 527, 532, 349 P.3d 476 (2015). Accordingly, the district court correctly found that under these circumstances, Jones' petition purports to state a claim under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-1501(a) and must be filed in the county of incarceration, rather than with the sentencing court.