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.
Anderson picked up new charges while he was on extended supervision. He pled to and was sentenced for two of the new charges while his ES revocation proceedings were still pending. The circuit court ordered the sentences imposed for the new charges to run consecutively to each other and to any other sentence and granted 106 days of sentence credit for the time Anderson was in custody between his arrest and sentencing. (¶¶5-11).
After Anderson’s ES was revoked the Department of Corrections informed the court that the 106 days had been credited toward Anderson’s ES reconfinement term and therefore shouldn’t be granted against the new sentences, as that would result in duplicate credit contrary to State v. Boettcher, 144 Wis. 2d 86, 423 N.W.2d 533 (1988). The circuit court rescinded the credit granted against the sentences for the new charges. (¶¶12-15).
It was right to do so:
¶19 In Boettcher, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a defendant is not entitled to receive dual credit on a consecutive sentence. Id., 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.” Id. Boettcher further states that “[f]or ease in calculation and clarity in respect to subsequent exercise of court discretion, the credits should be applied to the sentence that is first imposed.” Id. at 100.
¶20 In this case, the trial court expressly stated that the sentences that it was imposing in this case were “consecutive to each other and to any other sentence.” Thus, the case is controlled by Boettcher….
¶21 Anderson argues Boettcher is distinguishable because his sentence in this case was imposed prior to revocation. However, as of the date of his November 28, 2016 arrest, Anderson was serving the extended supervision component of his sentence in the [previous case]. See Wis. Stat. § 973.01(2) (a bifurcated sentence consists of a term of confinement in prison followed by a term of extended supervision). Anderson was sentenced in the [previous case] before he was sentenced in this case. Therefore, … Anderson should not receive any additional sentence credit in this case…..
