Hall v. State, S
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
| Writing for the Court | DAY |
| Citation | 225 N.W.2d 493,66 Wis.2d 630 |
| Parties | Charles Ray HALL, Plaintiff-in-Error, v. STATE of Wisconsin, Defendant-in-Error. tate 166. |
| Docket Number | No. S,S |
| Decision Date | 04 February 1975 |
Page 493
v.
STATE of Wisconsin, Defendant-in-Error.
Page 494
[66 Wis.2d 631] Howard B. Eisenberg, State Public Defender, Madison, for plaintiff-in-error.
Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., and David J. Becker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, for defendant-in-error.
DAY, Justice.
This case raises the question as to when a challenge to a sentence must be made by appeal or writ of error which alleges the failure of the trial court to consider preconviction incarceration-time spent in jail because of financial inability to post bail.
Plaintiff in error Charles Ray Hall was convicted under secs. 943.32(1)(b), 943.32(2), and 939.05, Stats., of armed robbery as a party to a crime upon his plea of guilty on February 15, 1971. He received a sentence [66 Wis.2d 632] of fifteen years in prison, one half of the maximum. On June 2, 1974, he moved that his sentence be modified to give him credit for time spent in the Milwaukee county jail prior to sentencing. In support of the motion, he alleged he was arrested on June 22, 1970; that he was unable to post bond; and that he remained incarcerated until his trial date. This was a period of approximately eight months. Upon receiving this pro se motion, the trial judge wrote plaintiff in error a letter under date of June 5, 1974, stating:
'I have checked the Court transcript and the Court file and after reviewing the same I do not see fit to alter the sentence imposed by this Court on February 15th, 1971.'
This letter was treated as an order and a writ of error was issued by this court to review it. The state public defender, representing Mr. Hall, has moved that the order denying the motion for reduction of sentence be vacated and the cause be remanded for reconsideration in light of our decision in Byrd v. State (1974), 65 Wis.2d 415, 222 N.W.2d 696. The state has opposed this motion on the ground the Byrd decision ought to be prospective only in its application.
We announced two rules in Byrd with regard to consideration of preconviction incarceration. The first was that:
'. . . a defendant must be given credit for time spent in custody prior to conviction to the extent such time added to the sentence imposed exceeds the maximum sentence permitted under the statute for such offense, provided such time spent in custody was a result of the criminal charge for which a prison or jail...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brinkman v. Schubert, 74-C-468
...for jail time when the sentence imposed is less than the maximum. State v. Wills, 69 Wis.2d 489, 230 N.W.2d 827 (1974); Hall v. State, 66 Wis.2d 630, 225 N.W.2d 493 (1975); State v. Seals, 65 Wis.2d 434, 223 N.W.2d 158 (1974); Byrd v. State, 65 Wis.2d 415, 222 N.W.2d 696 (1974). Respondents......
-
Faye v. Gray, 76-1105
...to post bond, where that time together with the sentence imposed exceeds the maximum sentence allowed for the offense. In Hall v. State, 66 Wis.2d 630, 225 N.W.2d 493 (1975), the court held that denial of sentence credit was not unconstitutional if the pre-sentence time together with the se......
-
Klimas v. State, 75--242--CR
...was made--about eight months after the original sentence. The state relies upon the statement of this court in Hall v. State, 66 Wis.2d 630, 634, 225 N.W.2d 493, [75 Wis.2d 246] 'Hayes (Hayes v. State, 46 Wis.2d 93, 175 N.W.2d 625 (1970)) requires that such motion be made within ninety days......
-
Johnson v. Prast, s. 76-1550
...jail time. 3 In reviewing the petition, the District Court apparently adopted the view of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Hall v. State, 66 Wis.2d 630, 633-634, 225 N.W.2d 493, 495 (1975), that consideration of presentence jail time is a matter, not of constitutional right, but of the senten......