On Point: 3. Consecutive sentences

State v. Peter C. Ramuta, 2003 WI App 80, PFR filed 4/3/03
For Ramuta: Peter M. Koneazny, Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

¶22. Ramuta complains that the cumulative terms of initial confinement-thirty-five years, until he turns seventy-six-are excessive. He claims that the trial court did not adequately explain why the sentences for all but one of his crimes should be, to use Ramuta’s word,

State v. James E. Cole, 2000 WI App 52, 233 Wis. 2d 577, 608 N.W.2d 432

Issue: Whether a sentence can be ordered to run “consecutive to revocation” when the defendant’s parole has not yet been revoked.

Holding: A court has authority, under Wis. Stat. § 973.15(2)(a), to make the current sentence consecutive to a revocation of parole, even though the revocation has not yet occurred.

State v. David Carneal White, 2000 WI App 147, 237 Wis.2d 699, 615 N.W.2d 667
For White: Jeffrey A. Kingsley

Issue: Whether a court has authority to stay a sentence until the defendant is released or discharged from an otherwise unrelated Ch. 980 commitment.

Holding: The purposes of § 971.17 NGI and Ch. 980 SVP commitments being similar (¶¶8-9), the reasoning of State v.

State v. Daron E. Maron, 214 Wis. 2d 384, 571 N.W.2d 454 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Maron: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding1:

… We conclude that § 973.15(2), Stats., does not give the trial court authority to order that the sentence be served consecutive to jail time already being served as a condition of probation. …

…

Subsequent amendment to § 973.15,