Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Credit denied on concurrent sentences

By: dmc-admin//June 29, 2009//

Credit denied on concurrent sentences

By: dmc-admin//June 29, 2009//

Listen to this article

Suppose a client is out on bail and gets arrested for a new offense.

You’ll need to think about whether you’ll be able to get him released back on the street or not.

If you think you can, then you’ll want to oppose any revocation of bail. But if you don’t think so, you should probably make a counterintuitive request that bail be revoked or raised on the original charge.

A June 23 opinion from the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that merely because concurrent sentences are imposed at the same time, credit for time served need not be credited against both sentences.

As a result, the defendant can’t get credit for his original offense, for 50 days he spent in custody after his second arrest.

In 2004, Elandis D. Johnson was arrested for a drug offense and entered a guilty plea. He posted bail after only four days in custody and was released. In 2005, while awaiting sentencing, he was arrested for a new drug offense.

Following this arrest, Johnson remained technically still “free” on bail in his 2004 case, but spent 50 more days in custody before being released on bail in the 2005 case. He was free on bail for 84 days before a joint sentencing on the two cases.

He received one year of initial confinement, followed by 18 months of extended supervision in his 2004 case, and a concurrent sentence of one year of initial confinement, followed by one year of extended supervision in his 2005 case.

The circuit court awarded 50 days credit against the sentence in his 2005 case, but not against the sentence in his 2004 case. After sentencing, Johnson filed a postconviction motion seeking credit for the 50 days in his 2004 case, as well.

However, the circuit court denied the request, reasoning that the 50 days in custody were not “in connection with” the sentence in that case.

Section 973.155(1)(a) provides: “A convicted offender shall be given credit toward the service of his or her sentence for all days spent in custody in connection with the course of conduct for which sentence was imposed.”

Johnson appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed in a published opinion. State v. Johnson, 2008 WI App 34, 307 Wis.2d 735, 746 N.W.2d 581.

The Supreme Court accepted review, but also affirmed, in an opinion by Justice David T. Prosser.

The court concluded that, under the plain language of the statute, which requires that sentence credit be given only if the time was spent in custody “in connection with” the facts, Johnson is not entitled to the credit he sought.

The court found, “there is no factual connection between the four days of presentence custody in 2004 and the course of conduct for which the sentences in the 2005 case were imposed, nor is there a factual connection between the 50 days of presentence custody in 2005 and the course of conduct for which the sentence in the first 2004 case was imposed.”

Prior Cases

The court acknowledged that a Court of Appeals case, State v. Ward, 153 Wis.2d 743, 452 N.W.2d 158 (Ct.App.1989), suggested that Johnson was entitled to the credit he sought.

The court in Ward said that, whenever concurrent sentences are imposed at the same time, or for offenses arising from the same course of conduct, credit should be given against each sentence. Ward, 153 Wis.2d at 746.

However, the Supreme Court found that conclusion inconsistent with the plain language of sec. 973.155(1)(a).

Ineffective Assistance

Before concluding, the court briefly addressed whether trial counsel was ineffective for not asking the circuit court to revoke bail in the 2004 case, so that he could obtain sentence credit on both cases, and held he was not.

The court noted that trial counsel ultimately did obtain release for Johnson on the new charges.

Thus, the court concluded it would be unreasonable to expect counsel to ask for revocation of bail on the old charge, and then, turn around and seek release on both the old and new charges.

Concurrences

Justice Prosser wrote a separate concurrence to his own majority opinion, as did Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler (Ziegler’s opinion was joined by Justices Patience Drake Roggensack and Michael Gableman).

Both concurrences addressed a proposed rule put forth by Johnson’s attorney called the “Bill Gates Rule” — that no defendant should have to spend more time in custody than Bill Gates would for the same conduct — based on an assumption that Gates could always make bail at the first opportunity.

The concurrences rejected the proposed rule, finding no equal protection violation in limiting credit for time served to time spent in custody “in connection with” the facts underlying that time.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests