State v. Cecil Lennel Hudson, 2012AP702-CR, District 1, 11/27/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
Hudson isn’t entitled to credit against his new (disorderly conduct) sentence because it runs consecutive to his old (ES-revocation) sentence:
¶9 At the time of Hudson’s plea and sentencing hearing on the disorderly conduct charge, Hudson’s trial counsel was aware that Hudson was going to be serving an additional eighteen months on the 2008 case. The trial court ordered Hudson’s sentence on the disorderly conduct charge consecutive to any other sentence. Hudson’s trial counsel correctly acknowledged that Hudson was not due any pretrial incarceration credit. See State v. Tuescher, 226 Wis.2d 465, 469, 595 N.W.2d 443 (Ct. App. 1999) (Under the sentence credit statute, when multiple sentences are imposed at the same time, time spent in presentence custody is credited toward each sentence if the sentences are concurrent, but if the sentences are consecutive, time in presentence custody is credited towards only one sentence.). See also State v. Rohl, 160 Wis. 2d 325, 329-330, 466 N.W.2d 208 (Ct. App. 1991) (Wisconsin Stat. § 973.155 provides that credit for the same course of conduct for which the offender is ultimately sentenced means that credit is awarded on a day-for-day basis against the total days of incarceration imposed against an offender for sentences which are consecutive. This is regardless of whether the offender seeks credit against consecutive sentences, both of which have yet to be served or one sentence which already has been served; credit should be applied to the sentence that is first imposed.).
If you’re thinking, “This is pretty basic stuff,” you would be right.