Opinion ID: 2814791
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: While the offender is awaiting imposition of

Text: sentence after trial. In order for the sentence to be in connection with the course of conduct for which sentence was imposed, there must be a factual connection between the custody and the sentence. State v. Elandis Johnson, 2009 WI 57, ¶65, 318 Wis. 2d 21, 767 N.W.2d 207. ¶27 When custody is at least in part due to the conduct resulting in [a] new conviction, a court must award sentence credit under Wis. Stat. § 973.155(1)(b). State v. Hintz, 2007 WI App 113, ¶11, 300 Wis. 2d 583, 731 N.W.2d 646. Here, the sentence for the felony conviction was issued subsequent to the sentences for the misdemeanor convictions as a consecutive sentence. ¶28 Because all of Obriecht's custody was not in connection with both the misdemeanor and felony sentences, it is important in our review to identify to which sentences the custody relates. The first period of custody began on February 2, 1998 when Obriecht was arrested and charged with seven misdemeanors and one felony. This period of custody ended on October 16, 1998, a period of 257 days, when he was released on bail. These 257 days have a factual connection to the conduct that led to the sentences issued for both misdemeanors and felony; therefore, this period of custody was in connection with the course of conduct for which he subsequently was 12 No. 2013AP1345-CR sentenced for both misdemeanor and felony convictions. Elandis Johnson, 318 Wis. 2d 21, ¶66. ¶29 Obriecht was convicted by a jury of all eight counts on June 30, 1999, and he was taken into custody. On November 19, 1999, Obriecht was sentenced on the misdemeanor convictions, but sentence was withheld on the felony conviction and Obriecht was placed on 12 years probation. This 142-day period from conviction to sentencing was in connection with the conduct that led to sentencing for misdemeanors and felony. No days in custody subsequent to November 19, 1999 were in connection with the felony sentence because probation is not a sentence. State v. Edwards, 2013 WI App 51, ¶7, 347 Wis. 2d 526, 830 N.W.2d 109; Wis. Stat. § 973.155(1)(a). However, Obriecht's custody did continue after sentencing on November 19, 1999, until he was released on bail pending appeal on December 20, 1999. This additional 32 days of custody was solely in connection with the misdemeanor sentences. ¶30 On March 21, 2001, the stay of Obriecht's misdemeanor sentences pending appeal was lifted and he was taken into custody for transportation to prison to serve the sentences for his misdemeanor convictions. Pre-incarceration custody ended when he entered Dodge Correctional Institution on April 21, 2001, adding custody of 31 days, which is in connection with the conduct that led to sentences for his misdemeanor convictions. State v. Gilbert, 115 Wis. 2d 371, 380, 340 N.W.2d 511 (1983) (concluding that the clear intent of sec. 973.155, Stats., is to grant credit for each day in custody regardless of the basis 13 No. 2013AP1345-CR for the confinement as long as it is connected to the offense for which sentence is imposed.). ¶31 When Obriecht reached Dodge Correctional Institution, Obriecht had served 462 days in custody in connection with the conduct that gave rise to the sentences for his misdemeanor convictions.12 The circuit court had granted Obriecht 326 days sentence credit when he was sentenced for the misdemeanors and the court granted an additional 31 days of sentence credit upon transportation to Dodge Correctional Institution, for a total of 357 days sentence credit. Therefore, 105 days that Obriecht had been in custody were not credited. ¶32 On August 17, 2001, Obriecht's probation for the felony conviction was revoked, and he was sentenced to a sevenyear indeterminate sentence, consecutive to the misdemeanor sentences he was then serving. No additional sentence credit was given when he was sentenced for the felony conviction. ¶33 Obriecht was released from prison on parole from the felony sentence March 22, 2011. On February 1, 2013, he was returned to prison for violating the conditions of his parole. The State asserts that sentence credit awarded during Obriecht's most recent and final period of incarceration, following the revocation of parole, can be applied only to time that may remain for a subsequent parole. This argument of the State is grounded in its interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 302.11(7). The State also asserts that all of the days of custody in 1998, 12 See supra note 7. 14 No. 2013AP1345-CR 1999, and 2001 for which sentence credit was not awarded did not arise from custody that was in connection with the course of conduct that resulted in the felony sentence. ¶34 We note that parole revocation does not involve the imposition of an additional criminal sanction. See State ex rel. Flowers v. DHSS, 81 Wis. 2d 376, 384-86, 260 N.W.2d 727 (1978) (explaining that parole revocation is civil in nature and that the sentence a defendant is required to serve on revocation is the sentence for the crime of which the defendant previously was convicted). The DHA has limited discretion to return revoked parolees to prison up to the remainder of their original sentence and not beyond. Id. at 386 (stating that the element of punishment upon revocation is tied to the sentence previously imposed). ¶35 We also consider Wis. Stat. § 304.072(4) to determine the effect of parole revocation on a defendant's sentence because the statute addresses that circumstance. Section 304.072(4) provides: The sentence of a revoked parolee or person on extended supervision resumes running on the day he or she is received at a correctional institution subject to sentence credit for the period of custody in a jail, correctional institution or any other detention facility pending revocation according to the terms of s. 973.155. The sentence to which § 304.072(4) refers is the sentence that was issued by the circuit court subsequent to conviction. We come to this conclusion because § 304.072(4) looks back at a sentence earlier commenced, i.e., the sentence resumes 15 No. 2013AP1345-CR running. Therefore, when Obriecht's parole was revoked, the seven-year indeterminate sentence for Obriecht's felony conviction caused reincarceration. Accordingly, the DHA's reincarceration order did not establish reincarceration as a new sentence. Id. Rather, it was a continuation of the sentence meted out by the circuit court judge. Therefore, if Obriecht had not received all the sentence credit that was available to apply to the felony sentence when that sentence was imposed, he could have received it when his parole was revoked. ¶36 Stated otherwise, the computation of sentence credit is governed by Wis. Stat. § 973.155(3) that provides: 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. The plain language of § 973.155(3) demonstrates that Obriecht is entitled to have the total amount of time he must spend in prison reduced by the amount of time he has spent in custody outside of prison when custody is in connection with the conduct for which the sentence is imposed. Elandis Johnson, 318 Wis. 2d 21, ¶66. In addition, when sentences are consecutive, sentence credit is not issued to more than one sentence so long as the first sentence to be served is sufficient to receive the sentence credit at issue. State v. Boettcher, 144 Wis. 2d 86, 93-95, 423 N.W.2d 533 (1988) (citing Doyle v. Elsea, 658 F.2d 512, 515 (1981) as Doyle interprets 18 U.S.C. § 3568 upon which § 973.155 was based). ¶37 As we explain, the custody first imposed should be applied to the sentence first imposed, with consecutive 16 No. 2013AP1345-CR sentences. As our discussion in the paragraphs above show, Obriecht's first period of custody extended 257 days, with the next period of custody extending 142 days. Of the 399 days in custody, the circuit court granted 326 days as sentence credit against the misdemeanor sentences. ¶38 The next periods of custody occurred between sentencing and release on bail pending appeal, 32 days, and between revocation of bail and transportation to Dodge Correctional Institution, 31 days. These periods of custody occurred solely in connection with conduct relating to the misdemeanor sentences because Obriecht was not being held for the felony conviction, on which the court had withheld sentence when it placed him on probation. ¶39 When Obriecht was transported to Dodge Correctional Institution, Obriecht had 73 days of custody in connection with the course of conduct that resulted in sentences for misdemeanor convictions and felony conviction. He also had 63 days of preincarceration custody that occurred after sentencing for misdemeanors and his probation for the felony conviction. ¶40 The circuit court granted 31 days of additional sentence credit when Obriecht was transported to Dodge Correctional Institution. Because we apply sentence credit granted to the earliest period of custody eligible for the credit, we apply the 31 days of credit to the 73 days of custody yet remaining that were in connection with both misdemeanor sentences and subsequently issued felony sentence, leaving 42 days that were in connection with the conduct that led to the 17 No. 2013AP1345-CR felony sentence. Stated otherwise, we apply granted sentence credit to the longest outstanding days of custody that were in connection with the conduct that led to the sentence. ¶41 As the State pointed out at oral argument, and as we have explained above, not all of the custody was in connection with the felony. After all sentence credit was awarded, there remained 42 days that was in connection with the course of conduct that led to both the misdemeanor and felony sentences and 63 days that was in connection with the misdemeanor sentences, a period of 105 days. Therefore, because the felony sentence was consecutive to the misdemeanor sentences and because 63 of the 105 days of custody that remained were in connection with the misdemeanors, only 42 days were in connection with the felony sentence. ¶42 Obriecht's continuation of the felony sentence upon parole revocation is the seven-year indeterminate, consecutive sentence the circuit court imposed on August 17, 2001. See Flowers, 81 Wis. 2d at 386 (stating punishment in parole revocation is attributable to the crime for which the parolee was originally convicted and sentenced); Wis. Stat. § 304.072(4) (stating sentence of a revoked parolee resumes running). Therefore, we conclude that on February 1, 2013 when Obriecht's parole was revoked and he was returned to prison, he should have received 42 days credit for custody that was in connection with conduct that led to the felony sentence, which sentence was available to accept such credit. To do otherwise, would be unfair to Obriecht and cause him to suffer a longer 18 No. 2013AP1345-CR period of incarceration for the felony conviction than the circuit court ordered. ¶43 The court of appeals and the State, in part, relied on Wis. Stat. § 302.11, titled Mandatory release, to hold that Obriecht's sentence credit applied to reduce his parole rather than reincarceration. Obriecht, 353 Wis. 2d 542, ¶12. Specifically, the court of appeals held that the § 302.11(7)(b) language that a parolee shall be incarcerated for the entire period of time determined by the reviewing authority would be violated if the court applied the sentence credit to the reincarceration period. Id.; § 302.11(7)(b). ¶44 We can see where the court of appeals found a conflict between Obriecht's request and Wis. Stat. § 302.11(7). However, we have applied the credit to the felony sentence in fairness to Obriecht, who should have received this credit on August 17, 2001 when he was sentenced on the felony conviction. ¶45 Furthermore, Wis. Stat. § 302.11(7) plainly applies to mandatory release, as indicated by its structure and statutory history.13 Paragraph (7)(b) first states the general rule that 13 Mandatory release. . . . [(7)](am) The reviewing authority may return a parolee released under sub. (1) or (1g)(b) or s. 304.02 or 304.06(1) to prison for a period up to the remainder of the sentence for a violation of the conditions of parole. The remainder of the sentence is the entire sentence, less time served in custody prior to parole. The revocation order shall provide the parolee with credit in accordance with ss. 304.072 and 973.155. (b) A parolee returned to prison for violation of the conditions of parole shall be incarcerated for the entire period of time determined by the reviewing 19 No. 2013AP1345-CR revoked parolees are not subject to early release; the next sentence provides a specific example that revoked parolees are not subject to mandatory release. It does not address the problem caused by custody incurred before sentencing that was not granted at sentencing. ¶46 Our reading of Wis. Stat. § 302.11(7)(b) is confirmed by statutory history. See Cnty. of Dane v. LIRC, 2009 WI 9, ¶27, 315 Wis. 2d 293, 759 N.W.2d 571 (explaining that statutory history is part of a plain meaning analysis). To explain further, the predecessor to § 302.11(7)(b) provided mandatory release for revoked parolees.14 The legislature repealed the preceding statute and replaced it with language prohibiting authority unless paroled earlier under par. (c). The parolee is not subject to mandatory release under sub. (1) or presumptive mandatory release under sub. (1g). The period of time determined under par. (am) may be extended in accordance with subs. (1q) and (2). Wisconsin Stat. § 302.11(7). 14 Any person on parole under this subsection may be returned to prison as provided in section 57.06(3) or 57.07(2) to serve the remainder of his sentence. He may earn good time on the balance of such sentence while so in prison, subject to forfeiture thereof for misconduct as herein provided. He may again be released on parole thereafter under either this section or section 57.06 or 57.07, whichever is applicable. The remainder of his sentence shall be deemed to be the amount by which his original sentence was reduced by good time. Wisconsin Stat. § 53.11(7)(b) (1951). In 1984, the legislature replaced earning good time with entitlement to mandatory release. See 1983 Wis. Act 528, § 9. 20 No. 2013AP1345-CR mandatory release for revoked parolees in 1984, which explains the specific example in the statute.15 ¶47 Wisconsin Stat. § 302.11(7)(am) also is not helpful in determining sentence credit under the facts before us. Section 302.11(7)(am) makes express reference to application of sentence credit. It provides for sentence credit in the context of a revocation order, citing both Wis. Stat. § 304.072 and Wis. Stat. § 973.155. Furthermore, the § 302.11(7)(am) reference to the entire sentence does not affect our analysis. It refers to the reincarceration required in Obriecht's revocation order. However, it is Obriecht's sentence imposed by the circuit court that is modified by sentence credit. Additionally, because our interpretation of § 973.155 resolves the question of Obriecht's sentence credit, we decline to address the issue of whether the court of appeals' application of § 302.11(7) violated equal protection.