2023 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations › Chapter 973 - Sentencing. › 973.155 - Sentence credit.

973.155
Sentence credit.
(1)
(a)
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, which occurs:
1.
While the offender is awaiting trial;
2.
While the offender is being tried; and
3.
While the offender is awaiting imposition of sentence after trial.
(b)
The categories in par. (a) and sub. (1m) include custody of the convicted offender which is in whole or in part the result of a probation, extended supervision or parole hold under s. 302.113 (8m), 302.114 (8m), 304.06 (3), or 973.10 (2) placed upon the person for the same course of conduct as that resulting in the new conviction.
(1m)
A convicted offender shall be given credit toward the service of his or her sentence for all days spent in custody as part of a substance abuse treatment program that meets the requirements of s. 165.95 (3), as determined by the department of justice under s. 165.95 (9) and (10), for any offense arising out of the course of conduct that led to the person's placement in that program.
(2)
After the imposition of sentence, the court shall make and enter a specific finding of the number of days for which sentence credit is to be granted, which finding shall be included in the judgment of conviction. In the case of revocation of probation, extended supervision or parole, the department, if the hearing is waived, or the division of hearings and appeals in the department of administration, in the case of a hearing, shall make such a finding, which shall be included in the revocation order.
(3)
The credit provided in sub. (1) or (1m) shall be computed as if the convicted offender had served such time in the institution to which he or she has been sentenced.
(4)
The credit provided in sub. (1) shall include earned good time for those inmates subject to s. 302.43, 303.07 (3) or 303.19 (3) serving sentences of one year or less and confined in a county jail, house of correction or county reforestation camp.
(5)
If this section has not been applied at sentencing to any person who is in custody or to any person who is on probation, extended supervision or parole, the person may petition the department to be given credit under this section. Upon proper verification of the facts alleged in the petition, this section shall be applied retroactively to the person. If the department is unable to determine whether credit should be given, or otherwise refuses to award retroactive credit, the person may petition the sentencing court for relief. This subsection applies to any person, regardless of the date he or she was sentenced.
(6)
A defendant aggrieved by a determination by a court under this section may appeal in accordance with s. 809.30.
History:  1977 c. 353; 1979 c. 154; 1983 a. 377, 528; 1987 a. 403 s. 256; 1989 a. 31, 107; 1997 a. 283; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 25; 2013 a. 20.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion during resentencing when it refused to give the defendant credit for time served on an unrelated conviction that was voided. State v. Allison, 99 Wis. 2d 391, 298 N.W.2d 286 (Ct. App. 1980).
This section grants credit for each day in custody regardless of the basis for confinement as long as it is connected to the offense for which sentence is imposed. State v. Gilbert, 115 Wis. 2d 371, 340 N.W.2d 511 (1983).
When the intended sentence was valid, but the judge did not follow the procedures under this section, the appropriate remedy was to modify the sentence to conform it to the requirements of this section. State v. Walker, 117 Wis. 2d 579, 345 N.W.2d 413 (1984).
“Custody" must result from the occurrence of a legal event, process, or authority that occasions, or is related to, confinement on a charge for which the accused is ultimately sentenced. State v. Demars, 119 Wis. 2d 19, 349 N.W.2d 708 (Ct. App. 1984).
When an offender committed robbery and 24 hours later fled from an officer, the offender was not entitled to credit toward the robbery sentence for time served under the sentence for fleeing an officer. State v. Gavigan, 122 Wis. 2d 389, 362 N.W.2d 162 (Ct. App. 1984).
When a probationer is arrested for a second crime and consequently begins serving time for the first crime, no credit toward the second sentence is required for time served under the first sentence. State v. Beets, 124 Wis. 2d 372, 369 N.W.2d 382 (1985).
No credit was due for time spent in a drug treatment facility as a condition of probation when the defendant was not in actual “custody" at the facility within the meaning of this section and s. 946.42. State v. Cobb, 135 Wis. 2d 181, 400 N.W.2d 9 (Ct. App. 1986).
Credit under this section is given on a day-to-day basis, which is not to be duplicatively credited to more than one consecutive sentence. State v. Boettcher, 144 Wis. 2d 86, 423 N.W.2d 533 (1988).
A defendant is not entitled to credit against a sentence for time spent under home detention. State v. Pettis, 149 Wis. 2d 207, 441 N.W.2d 247 (Ct. App. 1989). See also State v. Swadley, 190 Wis. 2d 139, 526 N.W.2d 778 (Ct. App. 1994).
Presentence credit must be applied to each of the concurrent terms to which the defendant is sentenced. State v. Ward, 153 Wis. 2d 743, 452 N.W.2d 158 (Ct. App. 1989).
Out-of-state presentence confinement while the defendant was on parole from Wisconsin may not be credited against subsequent reconfinement in Wisconsin for a parole violation. State v. Rohl, 160 Wis. 2d 325, 466 N.W.2d 208 (Ct. App. 1991).
When a waiver of juvenile jurisdiction is granted, secure juvenile detention time is eligible for credit consideration under this section as if it were jail time, retroactive to the date of the filing of the juvenile petition. State v. Baker, 179 Wis. 2d 655, 508 N.W.2d 40 (Ct. App. 1993).
The definition of “custody" in s. 946.42 (1) (a) is used to determine whether a person is in custody for sentence credit purposes. State v. Sevelin, 204 Wis. 2d 127, 554 N.W.2d 521 (Ct. App. 1996), 96-0729.
A person confined on a probation revocation or change in intensive sanctions due to an arrest for a subsequent crime is not entitled to credit under sub. (1) against the sentence for the subsequent crime although the confinement was triggered by the subsequent crime. State v. Abbott, 207 Wis. 2d 624, 558 N.W.2d 927 (Ct. App. 1996), 96-2051.
Sub. (1) (a) provides sentence credit only for custody connected to the charges to which the custody resulted from. Time served as the result of a bail jumping charge was not credited against a sentence for sexual assault, although the bail condition violated was in the sexual assault case. State v. Beiersdorf, 208 Wis. 2d 492, 561 N.W.2d 749 (Ct. App. 1997), 95-1234.
When a defendant is unable to satisfy cash-bail requirements on two or more unrelated charges, the defendant is entitled to sentence credit on both charges. However, if the defendant is committed following a finding of not guilty by reason of mental defect on one charge, there will be no sentence credit from the commitment against a sentence upon conviction on another of the charges as the confinement after the commitment is solely the result of the commitment. State v. Harr, 211 Wis. 2d 584, 568 N.W.2d 307 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-2815.
An 18-year-old on juvenile aftercare parole who was returned to juvenile detention because the parole was revoked pending sentencing after pleading guilty to an adult crime was eligible for sentence credit for the time spent in juvenile detention prior to sentencing. State v. Thompson, 225 Wis. 2d 578, 593 N.W.2d 875 (Ct. App. 1999), 97-3245.
When a sentence has been withheld and probation imposed, sub. (2) gives the court exclusive authority to determine sentence credit in imposing a postprobation sentence. A person subject to electronic monitoring, but not locked in the home at night, was not in custody and not entitled to sentence credit. State v. Olson, 226 Wis. 2d 457, 595 N.W.2d 460 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1450.
“Course of conduct" in sub. (1) (a) means the specific act for which the defendant is sentenced. As such, a defendant was not entitled to sentence credit on a later imposed sentence for time already served on sentences arising from the same criminal episode, but different criminal acts. State v. Tuescher, 226 Wis. 2d 465, 595 N.W.2d 443 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-2564.
Pretrial confinement on a dismissed charge that is read in at sentencing relates to an offense for which the offender is ultimately sentenced, entitling the offender to sentence credit. State v. Floyd, 2000 WI 14, 232 Wis. 2d 767, 606 N.W.2d 155, 98-2062.
For sentence credit purposes, an offender's status constitutes custody whenever the offender is subject to an escape charge for leaving that status. State v. Magnuson, 2000 WI 19, 233 Wis. 2d 40, 606 N.W.2d 536, 98-1105. See also State v. Friedlander, 2019 WI 22, 385 Wis. 2d 633, 923 N.W.2d 849, 17-1337.
Boettcher, 144 Wis. 2d 86 (1988), bars a claim for dual credit when the defendant has already received the same credit against a prior sentence that the defendant has already served. State v. Jackson, 2000 WI App 41, 233 Wis. 2d 231, 607 N.W.2d 338, 99-1161.
In a multiple count conviction, when one sentence is imposed and another stayed, applicable sentence credit must be applied to the first imposed sentence. State v. Wolfe, 2001 WI App 66, 242 Wis. 2d 426, 625 N.W.2d 655, 00-1466.
Sentence credit is not to be granted for time spent on electronic monitoring. State ex rel. Simpson v. Schwarz, 2002 WI App 7, 250 Wis. 2d 214, 640 N.W.2d 527, 01-0008.
Detention at the Wisconsin Resource Center while awaiting evaluation and trial on a petition for commitment as a sexually violent person under ch. 980 satisfies neither the “in custody" nor “in connection with" requirements of this section. The detention does not qualify for sentence credit under this section. Thorson v. Schwarz, 2004 WI 96, 274 Wis. 2d 1, 681 N.W.2d 914, 02-3380.
An offender who has had extended supervision revoked is entitled to sentence credit on any new charges until the trial court resentences the offender for the available remaining term of extended supervision. A reconfinement hearing is a sentencing, and the revocation is not. The defendant was entitled to sentence credit on the new charge from the date of his arrest until the day of sentencing on both charges because while his extended supervision was revoked, his resentencing had not yet occurred. State v. Presley, 2006 WI App 82, 292 Wis. 2d 734, 715 N.W.2d 713, 05-0359.
When a defendant has served jail time as a condition of probation and the defendant's probation is later revoked and the defendant commences serving an imposed and stayed sentence, the defendant is entitled to sentence credit for days spent in custody while in conditional jail time status, even if that custody is concurrent with service of an unrelated prison sentence. State v. Yanick, 2007 WI App 30, 299 Wis. 2d 456, 728 N.W.2d 365, 06-0849.
Sentence credit must be awarded under sub. (1) (b) for time in custody on an extended supervision hold if the hold was at least in part due to the conduct resulting in the new conviction. State v. Hintz, 2007 WI App 113, 300 Wis. 2d 583, 731 N.W.2d 646, 06-0217.
The underlying purpose of the sentence credit statute is to afford fairness by ensuring that a person not serve more time than that for which the person is sentenced. A narrow interpretation of the phrase “in connection with" furthers this purpose. If the defendant would have been in custody even if a charged offense had never occurred, the defendant was not treated unfairly by not receiving sentence credit for that time. State v. Johnson, 2007 WI 107, 304 Wis. 2d 318, 735 N.W.2d 505, 05-1492.
Sub. (1) (a) requires an award of credit against each sentence imposed for all days spent in custody in connection with the course of conduct underlying the sentence. The “in connection with the course of conduct" requirement applies individually to each concurrent sentence imposed at the same time. Credit due against any individual sentence is not awarded against a concurrent sentence that was not imposed in connection with the course of conduct giving rise to that individual sentence. State v. Johnson, 2009 WI 57, 318 Wis. 2d 21, 767 N.W.2d 207, 07-1114. See also State v. Carter, 2010 WI 77, 327 Wis. 2d 1, 785 N.W.2d 516, 06-1811.
When an offender is on a parole hold in a different sovereignty that has not acted to revoke parole, the circuit court should grant sentence credit in Wisconsin for the time the offender spent in presentence confinement in Wisconsin. Until the other sovereignty has acted on whether to grant credit, the Wisconsin sentence is the only outstanding sentence against which the court can grant credit. Therefore, the question of “double credit" is not ripe. The Wisconsin court, as the only court the issue of credit is before, should grant credit. State v. Brown, 2010 WI App 43, 324 Wis. 2d 236, 781 N.W.2d 244, 09-0896.
A court, in determining a sentence, may consider the amount of sentence credit to which the defendant is entitled so long as the court does not do so with the purpose of enlarging the sentence to deprive the defendant of the defendant's right to receive sentence credit. State v. Armstrong, 2014 WI App 59, 354 Wis. 2d 111, 847 N.W.2d 860, 13-1995.
A convicted offender is entitled to credit toward the service of the offender's sentence for all days spent in custody in connection with the course of conduct for which sentence was imposed. The defendant in this case was entitled to credit for the time during which he was unable to make cash bail on a burglary charge while he was also confined pursuant to a civil commitment order for contempt of court. Even though the defendant was in custody pursuant to the civil commitment order during the relevant time period, the custody was also in connection with the course of conduct for which the burglary sentence was imposed. State v. Trepanier, 2014 WI App 105, 357 Wis. 2d 662, 855 N.W.2d 465, 14-0178.
While a circuit court may seek assistance from its court clerk in accessing records that may be relevant to its determination, the award of sentence credit is the court's duty and the court must reach its own conclusion on the amount of sentence credit to be awarded and explain its findings and reasoning on the record. State v. Kitt, 2015 WI App 9, 359 Wis. 2d 592, 859 N.W.2d 164, 14-0500.
Sub. (4) applies to inmates serving sentences of one year or less and confined in a county jail. Sub. (4) was not applicable to the defendant who had a sentence of more than one year, and therefore, the defendant was not entitled to the good time earned during his failed probationary period to be applied as sentence credit to his confinement time in prison. Baade v. Hayes, 2015 WI App 71, 365 Wis. 2d 174, 870 N.W.2d 478, 14-2655.
Floyd, 2000 WI 14, remains good law.  Floyd limited the reach of sub. (1) to charges that are dismissed and read in at sentencing. That the trial court discussed a sexual assault, for which the defendant was ultimately acquitted, when sentencing him for an intimidation charge, did not require that the defendant be awarded credit for the time he spent in custody related to the sexual assault charge. State v. Piggue, 2016 WI App 13, 366 Wis. 2d 605, 875 N.W.2d 663, 15-0152.
A person is entitled to a day of sentence credit for each calendar day during which the person spent at least part of the day in custody. State v. Johnson, 2018 WI App 2, 379 Wis. 2d 684, 906 N.W.2d 704, 16-0924.
In order to receive sentence credit under this section, a defendant must have been in custody. Under s. 946.42 (1) (a), custody can either be actual or constructive. Crucially, however, the escape statute is clear that custody does not include constructive custody of a defendant on probation or extended supervision. Whether a defendant is at liberty through no fault of the defendant is irrelevant to a sentence credit determination. State v. Friedlander, 2019 WI 22, 385 Wis. 2d 633, 923 N.W.2d 849, 17-1337.
A defendant who spends time in custody on probation holds is entitled to sentence credit for those time periods against the sentences for all counts charged in connection with the course of conduct for which the sentences were imposed. State v. Zahurones, 2019 WI App 57, 389 Wis. 2d 69, 934 N.W.2d 905, 18-1845.
An award of sentence credit under this section is mandatory. Nothing in this section authorizes the parties to agree to an amount of sentence credit that differs from the amount to which the defendant is entitled under the statute. An agreement between the parties as to the proper amount of sentence credit—even if adopted by the circuit court during the sentencing hearing—does not prevent a defendant from later arguing in a post-conviction motion that the amount of sentence credit awarded by the court was erroneous. State v. Kontny, 2020 WI App 30, 392 Wis. 2d 311, 943 N.W.2d 923, 19-1257.
A defendant is not entitled to sentence credit for the date on which the defendant is sentenced. The statutory language “awaiting imposition of sentence” does not include the date of sentencing because that is the date a defendant's sentence begins. As such, the date of sentencing is counted toward the service of the defendant's sentence. State v. Kontny, 2020 WI App 30, 392 Wis. 2d 311, 943 N.W.2d 923, 19-1257.
Sub. (1) (b) does not specifically exclude federal holds from sentence credit; it simply explains that sentence credit is available for state probation, extended supervision, and parole holds. Sub. (1) (a) makes clear that the enumeration of “actual days spent in custody” under sub. (1) (a) is not limited to those examples in sub. (1) (b). As the court explained in Gilbert, 115 Wis. 2d 371 (1983), the clear intent of this section is to grant credit for each day in custody regardless of the basis for the confinement so long as it is connected to the offense for which the sentence is imposed. State v. Thomas, 2021 WI App 59, 399 Wis. 2d 165, 963 N.W.2d 927, 20-0976.
This section sets a basic rule for sentence credit determinations: a defendant will receive credit for time spent incarcerated when that time has a factual connection to the offense for which the defendant is convicted. The supreme court has repeatedly held that the test under sub. (1) (a) is a factual one. Mere procedural connection is insufficient to warrant sentence credit. State v. Lira, 2021 WI 81, 399 Wis. 2d 419, 966 N.W.2d 605, 19-0691.
Section 973.10 (2) (b) provides that if a probationer has already been sentenced and the probationer's probation is later revoked, the Department of Corrections shall order the probationer to prison, and the term of the sentence shall begin on the date the probationer enters the prison. Under this unambiguous language, the defendant's imposed-and-stayed sentence did not begin to run until the date the defendant entered prison. It was undisputed that after the defendant's probation in the drug case was revoked, the defendant remained in jail awaiting resolution of charges in an armed robbery case, and the defendant did not enter prison until after he was sentenced on those charges. As such, the defendant did not begin serving the imposed-and-stayed sentence in the drug case until after the defendant was sentenced on the armed robbery charges. Thus, the revocation of the defendant's probation in the drug case did not sever the connection between the defendant's presentence custody and the course of conduct for which the defendant's sentences on the armed robbery charges were imposed. State v. Slater, 2021 WI App 88, 400 Wis. 2d 93, 968 N.W.2d 740, 20-1936.
Dual credit is permissible only when the two sentences are imposed concurrently. State v. Slater, 2021 WI App 88, 400 Wis. 2d 93, 968 N.W.2d 740, 20-1936.
The supreme court has long held that, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, or judicial declaration in the sentence imposed, when there is a present sentence for another offense of one then actually or constructively serving a former sentence, the two sentences run concurrently. In this case, in the absence of any evidence that the circuit court intended to impose consecutive sentences, the reviewing court presumed that the sentences were concurrent. State v. Slater, 2021 WI App 88, 400 Wis. 2d 93, 968 N.W.2d 740, 20-1936.
Jail credit may not be granted if it is not provided for by statute. 71 Atty. Gen. 102.
Sentence Credit: More Than Just Math. White. Wis. Law. Oct. 1991.