On Point blog, page 1 of 2
Driver’s prior IID order hadn’t expired, so his prohibited alcohol concentration was 0.02, not 0.08
State v. Dominic A. Caldiero, 2021AP1163-CR, District 4, 4/28/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
When he drove in 2019, Caldiero was still “subject to” a 2015 court order under § 343.301 (2013-14) restricting his operating privilege to cars with an ignition interlock device (IID) because the time period on that restriction does not begin to run till DOT issues him a driver’s license, and that hadn’t happened as of the date he was driving.
Defense win! COA holds imposed-and-stayed prison sentence begins on receipt at Dodge
State v. Joseph L. Slater, 2021 WI App 88; case activity (including briefs)
Slater had a prison sentence imposed and then stayed in favor of probation. While on probation, he was arrested on three new charges. The department of corrections revoked his probation pretty quickly, but he didn’t get sent to prison: instead, he remained in the county jail for over three years while those new charges were pending. After a jury convicted him on on the new charges, he got three new concurrent prison sentences. The court of appeals now holds that Slater should be credited on those new sentences for the years he spent in jail awaiting trial.
SCOW rejects doctrine of sentence “advancement” when consecutive sentence is vacated
State v. Richard H. Harrison, Jr., 2020 WI 35, 4/17/20, reversing an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)
Addressing an unusual issue that is now also effectively moot due to developments in the case since the cross petitions for review were granted, a majority of the supreme court holds that Harrison isn’t entitled to sentence credit or sentence “advancement” toward an earlier sentence for time spent in custody on a consecutive sentence that is later vacated.
Kinda a defense win on a complicated sentencing issue
State v. Richard H. Harrison Jr., , 2017AP2440-2441-CR, 3/21/19, District 4, (not recommended for publication); Review Granted 8/14/19, reversed, 2020 WI 35; case activity (including briefs)
This post requires some concentration. Harrison was sentenced to 3 years IC (Initial Confinement) and 3 years ES (Extended Supervision) in a 2007 case and a 2008 case. In an unrelated 2010 case he was sentenced to 13 years IC and 7 years ES. And in a 2011 case he received 30 years IC and 10 years ES. The 2010 and 2011 sentences ran consecutive to all other sentences. Harrison served the IC parts of his 2007 and 2008 cases and started serving his IC in the 2010 case when–lucky him–both his 2010 and his 2011 convictions were vacated. By this point all he had to serve was the ES of his 2007 and 2008 cases.
Circuit court properly denied duplicate sentence credit on consecutive sentence
State v. Terry Terrell Anderson, 2017AP2165-CR, District 1, 7/31/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Anderson sought pretrial custody credit against sentences that were ordered to run consecutively to a previously imposed sentence. Because the time in custody was credited to the previously imposed sentence, he’s not entitled to the same credit against the later-imposed consecutive sentences.
Court of appeals rejects claim for duplicate sentence credit
State v. Java I. Orr, 2016AP2009, 7/5/17, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Orr raises and loses 3 issues relating to the sentence credit that he received in this case. He argues that (1) he should have been allowed withdraw his plea because trial counsel gave him incorrect infromation regarding the sentence credit he would receive; (2) the actual amount of sentence credit he received is a new factor warranting modification of his sentence; and (3) the trial court sentenced based on inaccurate sentence credit information.
DOC erred in recalculating string of consecutive sentences after one was vacated
State v. Steven F. Zastrow, 2015AP2182-CRAC, District 3, 6/27/17 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Zastrow was serving a string of four consecutive prison sentences, the first imposed in June 2006 in Winnebago County, the other three imposed in October 2006 in Outagamie County. In 2008 the Winnebago sentence was vacated and Zastrow was resentenced to imposed and stayed prison time and placed on probation consecutive to the Outagamie sentences. DOC thereafter recalculated the release dates on the remaining three Outagamie sentences, and decided those sentences started running in 2008, when the Winnebago sentence was vacated. (¶¶2-4). Wrong, says the court of appeals. Those sentences began back in October 2006, on the date they were imposed.
Defendant not entitled to custody credit already given against earlier-imposed sentence
State v. Lazeric R. Maxey, 2015AP2137-CR, 4/6/16, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Maxey isn’t entitled to credit on time he spent in custody relating to two cases for which he’s serving consecutive sentences because he hasn’t shown the credit wasn’t given on the earlier-imposed sentence.
Plea withdrawal and ineffective assistance claims based on sentence credit error rejected
State v. Stephen Toliver, 2014AP2939-CR, 12/15/15, District 1 (not recommended for publication);case activity
Here, in Wisconsin’s very own Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, the court of appeals upholds the denial of Toliver’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, the circuit court’s refusal to vacate his felony murder plea, and the circuit court’s denial of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Sentence Credit — Consecutive Sentences — Allocation to First Sentence
State v. Paul L. Wolfe, 2001 WI App 66, 242 Wis. 2d 426, 625 N.W.2d 655
For Wolfe: Gary Seeling
Issue: “The basic question before us is whether a court, in a multiple count conviction where one sentence is imposed and another stayed, must apply sentence credit to the conviction of the first imposed sentence,” ¶1.
Holding:
¶1. … We hold that it must under the rule of State v.