An offender is not entitled to additional sentence credit pursuant to sec. 973.04 when: (1) the vacated sentence was originally imposed concurrent to a separate sentence, (2) the separate sentence is not vacated, (3) the vacated sentence is reimposed consecutively to the non-vacated sentence, and (4) the time that the defendant requested was served in satisfaction of the sentence that was not vacated.
“In the instant case, the time for which Lamar seeks sentence credit was served on a separate, non-concurrent sentence. If Lamar received the sentence credit he seeks, he would receive dual credit from two consecutive sentences for the period from September 15, 2006, through March 23, 2007. As this court held in Boettcher, defendants are not entitled to dual credit on a consecutive sentence. See Boettcher, 144 Wis. 2d at 87 (‘Credit is to be given on a day-for-day basis, which is not to be duplicatively credited to more than one of the sentences imposed to run consecutively.’). Accordingly, we conclude that Lamar received all of the sentence credit to which he is entitled.”
08AP2206-CR State v. Lamar
Attorneys: For Appellant: Hintze, Donna L., Madison ;For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; Pray, Eileen W., Madison