COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED June 29, 1995 |
NOTICE |
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 94-1120-CR
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
DARNELL JACKSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of
the circuit court for Dane County:
ROBERT DE CHAMBEAU, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Gartzke, P.J.,
Dykman and Sundby, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Darnell Jackson appeals from an order
denying his motion for additional sentence credit. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Sometime before January
3, 1992, Jackson was in custody awaiting sentencing for a crime unrelated to
this appeal (first crime). On January
3, 1994, Jackson committed battery to a prisoner (second crime). The second crime underlies this appeal.
Sixteen days after
committing the second crime, Jackson was sentenced to thirty years'
imprisonment for the first crime.
Thereafter, an additional 209 days passed before he was sentenced to
four years, consecutive, for the second crime.
The first sixteen-day
period is distinguished from the second 209-day period because during the
sixteen days, Jackson was in presentence custody; no sentence had yet been
imposed on either the first or the second crime. By contrast, during the remaining 209 days before the consecutive
four-year sentence was imposed for the second crime, Jackson was already
serving a thirty-year sentence for the first crime.
The sentence for the
first crime included credit for the sixteen days Jackson was in presentence
custody for both the first and the second crime. The sentence for the second crime did not include any credit for
the 209 days Jackson spent in custody between sentence for the first crime and
sentence for the second crime. Jackson
appeals, arguing that he is entitled to 227 days credit.[1]
ANALYSIS
The Sixteen Days
State v. Boettcher, 144
Wis.2d 86, 423 N.W.2d 533 (1988), forbids dual sentence credit where, as here,
consecutive sentences are imposed.
Thus, Jackson got all the credit he was due when he received credit on
his first sentence for the sixteen days he spent in presentence custody for
both crimes.
Jackson attempts to
distinguish Boettcher. He
argues that Boettcher was in custody on a probation violation when the second
sentence was imposed, but that he (Jackson) was in custody awaiting
sentencing. However, Jackson does not
satisfactorily explain why sentence credit should differ depending on whether a
person is in probation violation custody or in presentence custody. Indeed, he acknowledges that under a
straightforward application, the circuit court did not err in refusing double
sentence credit for the sixteen days.
The 209 Days
Jackson
also asks that he receive credit for the 209 days. Under State v. Beets, 124 Wis.2d 372, 369 N.W.2d
382 (1985), no sentence credit may be granted on a new sentence for time spent
actually serving a sentence relating to a different crime. The State cited Beets to
Jackson but he has not explained why this decision does not control the result
in this case.
By the Court.—Order
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.