State v. Scott R. Dachelet, 2023AP970, 6/25/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity
Wisconsin’s seemingly straightforward sentence credit statute – Wis. Stat. § 973.155(1)(a) – is required to accommodate an infinite variety of scenarios. Here, the COA addressed whether a defendant is entitled to sentence credit on a withheld sentence where probation was revoked while also receiving credit for an imposed and stayed sentence that was revoked. Because lifting the stay on the imposed and stayed sentence severed the connection between the defendant’s custody and the case for which his sentence was withheld, the Court found that he was not entitled to dual sentence credit.
A jury convicted Scott Dachelet of possessing methamphetamine and bail jumping on April 13, 2022, in Calumet County Case No. 20-CF-33. The bail jumping stemmed from Dachelet violating the terms of his bond in an earlier case by possessing methamphetamine. On April 25, 2022, Dachelet pled guilty to a second bail jumping case in Calumet Co. Case No. 22-CF-44. This bail jumping charge arose because Dachelet missed a court appearance on the methamphetamine case. The same day, the circuit court placed Dachelet on probation for 30 months on both cases; the court withheld sentence on Case No. 20-CF-33 but imposed and stayed a nine-month jail sentence on Case No. 22-CF-44. (¶¶ 2-3).
On October 1, 2022, law enforcement discovered methamphetamine and firearms in Dachelet’s bedroom; he was placed in custody for violating rules related to GPS monitoring in connection with a third Calumet County case—Case No. 21-CF-674. (¶ 4).
On November 4, 2022, the DOC revoked Dachelet’s probation on Case Nos. 20-CF-33 and 22-CF-44 and he remained in custody. On November 29, 2022, Dachelet was sentenced to concurrent prison terms on each of the two counts in Case No. 20-CF-33 and on the single count in Case No. 22-CF-44. The court ordered 83 days of sentence credit. (¶ 5).
The DOC sent a letter to the circuit court stating that Dachelet was entitled to 141 days of sentence credit; including 25 days from November 4, 2022 – the date his probation was revoked on Case Nos. 20-CF-33 and 22-CF-44, to November 29, 2022 – the date he was sentenced on those cases. Over the State’s objection, the circuit court granted 141 days of credit. (¶ 6).
The State appealed the circuit court granting sentence credit in Case No. 20-CF-33 for the period between November 4 and November 29. It argued that, because Dachelet’s sentence was imposed and stayed in Case No. 22-CF-44, his jail sentence began in that case on November 4 when his probation was revoked. Therefore, according to the State, the connection between Case No. 20-CF-33 and his custody was severed on that date. (¶ 19). Dachelet argued that his custody between November 4 and November 29 was factually connected to the course of conduct for which his sentence was imposed and revoking his probation did not sever the connection. (¶ 7)
The Court agreed with the State’s assessment and directed the circuit court to reduce Dachelet’s sentence credit in Case No. 20-CF-33 by 25 days. (¶ 20). The Court noted that Wis. Stat. § 973.155(1)(a) provides:
A convicted offender shall be given credit toward the service of his or her sentence for all days spent in custody in connection with the course of conduct for which sentence was imposed. As used in this subsection, “actual days spent in custody” includes, without limitation by enumeration, confinement related to an offense for which the offender is ultimately sentenced, or for any other sentence arising out of the same course of conduct.
The Court relied primarily on two cases: Gavigan, which held that an offender is generally not entitled to sentence credit for custody that is being served in satisfaction of another unrelated criminal sentence; and Beets, which held that any days spent in custody when probation is revoked and sentence is imposed due to a new charge arises out of the case for which probation was revoked and not the new case. (¶¶ 9-17).
The Court observed that Dachelet’s nine-month sentence in Case No. 22-CF-44 for bail jumping due to missing a court appearance was not related or connected to his case for possessing methamphetamine or bail jumping that were the subjects of Case No. 20-CF-33:
The November 4 revocation of Dachelet’s probation in the 2022CF44 case lifted the stay and Dachelet’s previously imposed, but stayed, nine-month sentence for the bail-jumping conviction stemming from missing a jury-status hearing. Because Dachelet then began serving that sentence, his confinement no longer had any connection with the possession of methamphetamine charge or the related bail-jumping charge . . . Once Dachelet’s probation was revoked and the stay on service of his nine-month jail sentence in 2022CF44 lifted, he immediately began serving that sentence – his custody was then attributable solely to his 2022CF44 bail jumping conviction.
(¶¶ 18-19).
The Court’s opinion and Beets establish the general rule that if a person had been released from custody on Case A, but would still have been in custody due to Case B, that person is probably not entitled to sentence credit for Case A.
