State v. Morrick, 88-0128-CR
| Court | Court of Appeals of Wisconsin |
| Writing for the Court | EICH |
| Citation | 147 Wis.2d 185,432 N.W.2d 654 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Donald MORRICK, Defendant-Appellant. d |
| Docket Number | No. 88-0128-CR,88-0128-CR |
| Decision Date | 20 October 1988 |
Page 654
v.
Donald MORRICK, Defendant-Appellant. d
Opinion Released Oct. 20, 1988.
Opinion Filed Oct. 20, 1988.
Page 655
Ben Kempinen, Madison, on the briefs, for defendant-appellant.
Donald J. Hanaway, Atty. Gen., and Paul Lundsten, Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief, for plaintiff-respondent.
Before GARTZKE, P.J., and DYKMAN and EICH, JJ.
[147 Wis.2d 186] EICH, Judge.
Donald Morrick appeals from an order denying his postconviction motion for sentence credit. While the precise issue is difficult to determine from the briefs, we perceive it to be whether sec. 973.155(1)(a), Stats., which allows sentence credit for time spent in custody "in connection with the course of conduct" underlying the sentence imposed, requires credit for such incarceration when the same time has already been credited to a previously-served sentence. We answer the question in the negative and affirm the order.
The sentence for which Morrick claims credit was imposed on October 12, 1987, when, after revocation of his probation, he was sentenced to sixty days in jail for criminal damage to property. He was initially arrested on the charge on March 5, 1987, and was allowed to sign a signature bond. However, he was on probation from an earlier unspecified conviction at the time and, as often is the case, as a result of the arrest he was detained in jail on a "hold" filed by his probation agent. Thirty-three days later, on April 7, 1987, the earlier probation was revoked and Morrick was sentenced to 100 days in jail. He received a credit on the sentence for the thirty-two day period of his presentence incarceration, and he served the remainder of the sentence to its completion.
Then, on June 25, 1987, Morrick pleaded no contest to the criminal damage to property charge. The court did not sentence him at that time but instead placed him on probation for one year. Several weeks later, on September 17, 1987, Morrick was arrested again--this time for disorderly conduct--and proceedings were instituted to revoke his probation on the criminal damage to property charge. Revocation was accomplished and, on October 12, 1987, he was [147 Wis.2d 187] sentenced to sixty days in jail. The trial court credited that sentence with twenty-five days, representing the time he had been held in jail since his September 17 arrest. Morrick then moved the court to also allow him credit for an additional thirty-two days, representing his incarceration between March 5 and April 7, 1987--the same time credited to the 100-day jail sentence he received on the earlier, unrelated charge. The trial court denied the motion, and this appeal followed.
Morrick first suggests that our inquiry should be a simple one--that we only need
Page 656
consider whether the trial court, when it sentenced him on October 12, 1987, stated on the record that the sentence was to be served "consecutively" to the unrelated, previously-completed sentence imposed on April 7, 1987. If the court did not so state, Morrick contends that the sentence must be considered to be "concurrent" with the prior sentence and thus properly credited with the same thirty-two days. Morrick bases the argument on a statement in a 1922 case that "in the absence of a statute to the contrary, or judicial declaration in the sentence imposed, where there is a present sentence for another offense of one then actually or constructively serving a former sentence, the two sentences run concurrently." Application of McDonald, 178 Wis. 167, 171, 189 N.W. 1029, 1030 (1922). Whatever the vitality of that "rule" today, it is inapplicable here for Morrick was neither "actually [n]or constructively serving a former sentence"...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carter, 2006AP1811-CR.
...382; Tuescher, 226 Wis.2d 465, 595 N.W.2d 443; State v. Beiersdorf, 208 Wis.2d 492, 561 N.W.2d 749 (Ct.App.1997); State v. Morrick, 147 Wis.2d 185, 432 N.W.2d 654 (Ct.App.1988). ¶ 171 The Elandis Johnson case establishes that:Wis. Stat. § 973.155 imposes no requirement that credit applied t......
-
State v. Slater, Appeal No. 2020AP1936-CR
...State notes that the court of appeals has questioned the continued vitality of the McDonald 968 N.W.2d 748 rule. See State v. Morrick , 147 Wis. 2d 185, 187, 432 N.W.2d 654 (Ct. App. 1988) ; State v. Brown , 150 Wis. 2d 636, 639, 443 N.W.2d 19 (Ct. App. 1989) ; Rohl , 160 Wis. 2d at 330-31,......
-
State v. Blondin, 94-048
...issue considered here. Indeed, the amended statute expressly adopted prior federal cases disallowing double credit. See State v. Morrick, 432 N.W.2d 654, 657 n. 2 3 Apparently, the defendant in Doyle did not request double credit for time served following his conviction on the new offense. ......
-
State v. Oglesby, 2005AP1565-CR.
...Wis.2d 325, 331, 466 N.W.2d 208 (Ct.App.1991), State v. Brown, 150 Wis.2d 636, 639, 443 N.W.2d 19 (Ct.App.1989), and State v. Morrick, 147 Wis.2d 185, 187, 432 N.W.2d 654 (Ct.App.1988). However, we do not have the authority to overrule a standing decision of our supreme court. Cook v. Cook,......
-
State v. Carter, No. 2006AP1811-CR.
...382; Tuescher, 226 Wis.2d 465, 595 N.W.2d 443; State v. Beiersdorf, 208 Wis.2d 492, 561 N.W.2d 749 (Ct.App.1997); State v. Morrick, 147 Wis.2d 185, 432 N.W.2d 654 (Ct.App.1988). ¶ 171 The Elandis Johnson case establishes that:Wis. Stat. § 973.155 imposes no requirement that credit applied t......
-
State v. Slater, Appeal No. 2020AP1936-CR
...State notes that the court of appeals has questioned the continued vitality of the McDonald 968 N.W.2d 748 rule. See State v. Morrick , 147 Wis. 2d 185, 187, 432 N.W.2d 654 (Ct. App. 1988) ; State v. Brown , 150 Wis. 2d 636, 639, 443 N.W.2d 19 (Ct. App. 1989) ; Rohl , 160 Wis. 2d at 330-31,......
-
State v. Blondin, No. 94-048
...issue considered here. Indeed, the amended statute expressly adopted prior federal cases disallowing double credit. See State v. Morrick, 432 N.W.2d 654, 657 n. 2 3 Apparently, the defendant in Doyle did not request double credit for time served following his conviction on the new offense. ......
-
State v. Oglesby, No. 2005AP1565-CR.
...Wis.2d 325, 331, 466 N.W.2d 208 (Ct.App.1991), State v. Brown, 150 Wis.2d 636, 639, 443 N.W.2d 19 (Ct.App.1989), and State v. Morrick, 147 Wis.2d 185, 187, 432 N.W.2d 654 (Ct.App.1988). However, we do not have the authority to overrule a standing decision of our supreme court. Cook v. Cook,......