COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 4, 2010 David
R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
|
Appeal No. |
|
|||
STATE OF WISCONSIN |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT IV |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
State of
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Matthew Allen,
Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for
Before Vergeront, Lundsten and Higginbotham, JJ.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Matthew Allen appeals a postconviction order denying his motion for sentence credit. We affirm for the reasons discussed below.
BACKGROUND
¶2 The judgment of conviction in the present case, Dane County Case No. 2005CF1719, is based on twenty-three acts of forgery that Allen committed between March 21 and May 14, 2005. The State filed a criminal complaint on August 3, 2005, and the court released Allen on a signature bond that same day. The bond was revoked on September 8, 2006, after a jury found Allen guilty on all counts. On November 13, 2006, the court imposed consecutive terms of twelve months of initial incarceration and three months of extended supervision on each of the first ten counts, with concurrent twenty-year terms of probation on the remaining counts. The court awarded Allen sixty-six days of sentence credit on the first count for the time he spent in custody between the verdict and the sentencing.
¶3 Meanwhile, Allen was also placed on an extended supervision
hold in Grant County Case No. 2000CF45 on August 1, 2005, presumably as a
result of the course of conduct underlying the present case. Allen continued to be held in custody on the
¶4 Allen now seeks to have credit for most of the time he spent in custody on the extended supervision hold in the Grant County case (i.e., from August 1, 2005, to September 8, 2006) applied to his sentence in this case.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶5 We will independently review the application of the sentence
credit statute to a certain set of facts.
State v. Abbott, 207
DISCUSSION
¶6 Wisconsin
Stat. § 973.155(1)(a) (2007-08)[1]
provides that an “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.”
A sentencing court has the authority to determine whether a new sentence
will be served concurrently or consecutively to a contemporaneous or prior
sentence. Wis. Stat. § 973.15(2)(a). Sentence credit
which is due on one sentence should be applied to all other concurrent
sentences contemporaneously imposed for the same course of conduct. State v. Ward, 153
¶7 Allen acknowledges that the circuit court imposed the
sentences in this case consecutive to any other sentences that had been
previously imposed. He argues, however,
that his extended supervision hold on the
¶8 Allen’s argument is flawed in multiple respects. First of all, the relevant date of Allen’s
sentencing in the
¶9 Secondly, even if the sentence credit statute could be
construed to allow subsequent sentences to be imposed consecutive only to
previously imposed periods of confinement, rather than extended supervision,
the Grant County Circuit Court issued its reconfinement order on September 8,
2006, two months before the Dane County Circuit Court imposed the sentences in
this case. Thus, by the time the
consecutive sentences were imposed in this case, the days between August 1,
2005, and September 8, 2006, had already been credited on the
¶10 Third, even if the sentence credit statute could be interpreted to allow subsequent sentences to be imposed consecutive only to initial periods of confinement, and not periods of reconfinement, the sentences in this case were still not “contemporaneously imposed” to the Grant County case, on which periods of initial confinement and reconfinement had already been served.
¶11 Finally, the time Allen spent in custody on the extended
supervision hold in the
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.