Postconviction Relief – Sentence Credit

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District III

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Joseph L. Slater

Case No.: 2020AP1936-CR

Officials: Stark, P.J., Hruz and Nashold, JJ.

Focus: Postconviction Relief – Sentence Credit

Joseph Slater appeals from orders denying his postconviction motions for additional sentence credit. Slater was on probation in a prior case involving the possession of drugs (“the drug case”) when he was arrested and charged with three counts of armed robbery in the instant case (“the armed robbery case”). Slater’s arrest on the armed robbery charges triggered a probation hold in the drug case, and his probation was subsequently revoked. Slater was not, however, transferred to prison to begin serving his previously imposed-and-stayed sentence in the drug case. Instead, after Slater’s probation was revoked, he remained in the Marathon County Jail awaiting resolution of the armed robbery case for over three years.

Pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 973.10(2)(b) (2019-20), Slater argues that his imposed-and-stayed sentence in the drug case did not begin to run until he was received in prison, which did not occur until after his sentencing in the armed robbery case. Slater therefore argues that he is entitled to 1,096 additional days of sentence credit against his sentences imposed in the armed robbery case, representing the three-year period after his probation in the drug case was revoked. Stated differently, Slater argues he is entitled to credit for “the entire time he spent in jail before sentencing” in this case—a total of 1,260 days.

In response, the State contends that Slater is not entitled to the additional sentence credit he seeks because awarding him credit against his sentences in this case for the three years that he spent in jail after his probation in the prior case was revoked would result in an impermissible award of dual credit against non-concurrent sentences. The State correctly notes that dual credit is permissible only when two sentences are imposed concurrently, see State v. Boettcher, 144 Wis. 2d 86, 100, 423 N.W.2d 533 (1988), and it argues there is no indication that the circuit court intended Slater’s sentences on the armed robbery charges to be concurrent to his imposed-and-stayed sentence in the drug case. In the alternative, the State asserts that we should reject Slater’s claim for additional sentence credit because Slater invited any error that the court may have made when it granted him only 164 days of credit.

Recommended for Publication

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is Corporate Counsel, at Salesforce.