Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 304.072 (2026)
Period of probation, extended supervision or parole tolled
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
304.072(1)(1) If the department of corrections in the case of a parolee, probationer or person on extended supervision who is reinstated or waives a hearing or the division of hearings and appeals in the department of administration in the case of a hearing determines that a parolee, probationer or person on extended supervision has violated the terms of his or her supervision, the department or division may toll all or any part of the period of time between the date of the violation and the date an order of revocation or reinstatement is entered, subject to credit according to the terms of s. 973.155 for any time the parolee, probationer or person on extended supervision spent confined in connection with the violation.
304.072(2)(2) If a parolee, probationer or person on extended supervision is alleged to have violated the terms of his or her supervision but the department or division determines that the alleged violation was not proven, the period between the alleged violation and the determination shall be treated as service of the probationary, extended supervision or parole period.
304.072(3)(3) Except as provided in s. 973.09 (3) (b), the department preserves jurisdiction over a probationer, parolee or person on extended supervision if it commences an investigation, issues a violation report or issues an apprehension request concerning an alleged violation prior to the expiration of the probationer’s, parolee’s or person’s term of supervision.
304.072(4)(4) 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.
304.072(5)(5) The sentence of a revoked probationer shall be credited with the period of custody in a jail, correctional institution or any other detention facility pending revocation and commencement of sentence according to the terms of s. 973.155.
304.072 HistoryHistory: 1975 c. 41, 199; 1977 c. 353; 1983 a. 528; 1989 a. 31 s. 1704; Stats. 1989 s. 304.072; 1989 a. 107; 1997 a. 283.
304.072 AnnotationThe court could revoke a probation after the original probationary period had expired but the defendant had committed several crimes during the period. Williams v. State, 50 Wis. 2d 709, 184 N.W.2d 844 (1971).
304.072 AnnotationBefore the tolling statute applies, the Department of Health and Social Services must make a final determination that a violation occurred. Locklear v. State, 87 Wis. 2d 392, 274 N.W.2d 898 (Ct. App. 1978).
304.072 AnnotationWhen revocation proceedings were initiated prior to expiration of the parole period, parole was properly revoked after the period expired. State ex rel. Avery v. Percy, 99 Wis. 2d 459, 299 N.W.2d 886 (Ct. App. 1980).
304.072 AnnotationThe department may not grant jail credit when it is not provided for by statute. 71 Atty. Gen. 102.
304.072 NoteNOTE: The above annotations relate to s. 57.072 [now this section], which was repealed and recreated by ch. 353, laws of 1977 and again by Act 528, laws of 1983.
304.072 AnnotationSub. (3) applies to all parole violations that occur before an offender’s date of discharge from the offender’s entire sentence. The Department of Corrections had jurisdiction to revoke a second period of parole for a violation that the defendant committed during the first, and later revoked, period of parole when the violation was not discovered until the second parole period. DOC v. Schwarz, 2005 WI 34, 279 Wis. 2d 223, 693 N.W.2d 703, 03-2001.
304.072 AnnotationAn 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 arrest until the day of sentencing on both charges because while the defendant’s extended supervision was revoked, resentencing had not yet occurred. State v. Presley, 2006 WI App 82, 292 Wis. 2d 734, 715 N.W.2d 713, 05-0359.
304.072 AnnotationA term of supervision under sub. (3) includes the nonconfinement and confinement time arising from the same sentencing decision. With regard to identifying a term of supervision, probation, incarceration, and extended supervision are each a component of the sentence. A person who initially serves a term of probation that is ultimately revoked, and following revocation serves a bifurcated prison term, can be revoked from that prison term’s extended supervision component on the basis of a rules violation that occurred during the initial term of probation. State ex rel. McElvaney v. Schwarz, 2008 WI App 102, 313 Wis. 2d 125, 756 N.W.2d 441, 07-0415.
304.072 AnnotationThe “sentence” to which sub. (4) refers is the sentence that was issued by the circuit court subsequent to conviction. Sub. (4) looks back at a sentence earlier commenced. In this case, when the defendant’s parole was revoked, the indeterminate sentence for the defendant’s felony conviction caused reincarceration. The reincarceration order did not establish reincarceration as a new sentence. Rather, it was a continuation of the sentence meted out by the circuit court judge. Therefore, if the defendant had not received all the sentence credit that was available to apply to the felony sentence when that sentence was imposed, the defendant could have received it when parole was revoked. State v. Obriecht, 2015 WI 66, 363 Wis. 2d 816, 867 N.W.2d 387, 13-1345.
304.072 AnnotationThe plain language of sub. (5) applies only under the terms of s. 973.155. In turn, s. 973.155 (1) (a) permits sentence credit only when confinement is factually in connection with the course of conduct for which the sentence was imposed. State v. Lira, 2021 WI 81, 399 Wis. 2d 419, 966 N.W.2d 605, 19-0691.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: State-Dep't of Corr. v. Schwarz, 2005 WI 34 (Wis. 2005).
State-Dep't of Corr. v. Schwarz, 2005 WI 34 (Wis. 2005). “072(3) provides the DOC jurisdiction to revoke parole for any violation occurring between the offender's initial release on parole and the date of discharge on the underlying sentence, or whether its jurisdiction is limited to violations occurring during the offender's current…”
State v. Cesar Antonio Lira, 2021 WI 81 (Wis. 2021). “In addition, Lira claims that under Wis. Stat. §§ 304.072 (5)3 and 973.155,4 he must 2 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2017-18 version unless otherwise indicated.”
State v. Andrew M. Obriecht, 2015 WI 66 (Wis. 2015). “Wis. Stat. § 304.072 (4). Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals decision that affirmed the circuit court's denial of Obriecht's motion for sentence credit.”
State—Dep't of Corr. v. Schwarz, 2004 WI App 136 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “Because Wis. Stat. § 304.072 (3) (2001-02), 1 governing the DOC's jurisdiction in parole matters, is unambiguous and clearly limits the DOC's jurisdiction to seek revocation only for violations that occur during the current term of supervision, we reverse and reinstate the…”
State Ex Rel. McElvaney v. Schwarz, 2008 WI App 102 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “" He directs us to Wis. Stat. § 304.072 (3), which states: [T]he department preserves jurisdiction over a probationer, parolee or person on extended supervision if it commences an investigation, issues a violation report or issues an apprehension request concerning an alleged…”
Ardonis Greer v. Wayne J. Wiedenhoeft, 2014 WI 19 (Wis. 2014). “2011AP2188 ¶15 On November 8, 2010, Greer filed a motion objecting to the jurisdiction of the DOC.”
State Ex Rel. Ludtke v. Dep't of Corr., 572 N.W.2d 864 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “(4) The sentence of a revoked parolee 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…”
State v. Presley, 2006 WI App 82 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “155 (l)(b) requires the sentence credit to be given to each of his sentences, and that Wis. Stat. § 304.072 (4) suggests that this is the proper interpretation.”
State v. Davis, 2017 WI App 55 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017). “has adopted the following approach: *683 [W]hen an offender is revoked from supervision for committing a new crime and there is no reconfinement hearing on the revocation, and the offender is sentenced to concurrent terms on both the revocation sentence and the sentence for the…”
State v. Cole, 2000 WI App 52 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “He forms this conclusion from the Wis. Stat. § 304.072 (4) statement that a revoked parolee's sentence does not resume until the day he or she returns to prison.”
State v. Price, 604 N.W.2d 898 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “4 The State says that Guyton is no longer good precedent because a portion of the supreme court's rationale was superseded by the later enactment of § 304.072, Stats., pertaining to sentence credit.”
United States v. Luedtke, 125 F. App'x 732 (7th Cir. 2005). “Luedtke’s parole term was tolled by operation of Wis. Stat. § 304.072 (1) (which states that upon the department of corrections “may toll all or any part of the period of time between the date of the violation and the date an order of revocation or reinstatement is entered.”
— Wis. Stat. § 304.072(2) — 1 case
State v. Joseph L. Slater (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wis. Stat. § 304.072(3) — 4 cases
State-Dep't of Corr. v. Schwarz, 2005 WI 34 (Wis. 2005). “072(3) provides the DOC jurisdiction to revoke parole for any violation occurring between the offender's initial release on parole and the date of discharge on the underlying sentence, or whether its jurisdiction is limited to violations occurring during the offender's current…”
State—Dep't of Corr. v. Schwarz, 2004 WI App 136 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “Because Wis. Stat. § 304.072 (3) (2001-02), 1 governing the DOC's jurisdiction in parole matters, is unambiguous and clearly limits the DOC's jurisdiction to seek revocation only for violations that occur during the current term of supervision, we reverse and reinstate the…”
Ardonis Greer v. Wayne J. Wiedenhoeft, 2014 WI 19 (Wis. 2014). “2011AP2188 ¶15 On November 8, 2010, Greer filed a motion objecting to the jurisdiction of the DOC.”
State Ex Rel. McElvaney v. Schwarz, 2008 WI App 102 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “" He directs us to Wis. Stat. § 304.072 (3), which states: [T]he department preserves jurisdiction over a probationer, parolee or person on extended supervision if it commences an investigation, issues a violation report or issues an apprehension request concerning an alleged…”
— Wis. Stat. § 304.072(4) — 6 cases
State v. Andrew M. Obriecht, 2015 WI 66 (Wis. 2015). “Wis. Stat. § 304.072 (4). Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals decision that affirmed the circuit court's denial of Obriecht's motion for sentence credit.”
State v. Presley, 2006 WI App 82 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “155 (l)(b) requires the sentence credit to be given to each of his sentences, and that Wis. Stat. § 304.072 (4) suggests that this is the proper interpretation.”
State v. Davis, 2017 WI App 55 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017). “has adopted the following approach: *683 [W]hen an offender is revoked from supervision for committing a new crime and there is no reconfinement hearing on the revocation, and the offender is sentenced to concurrent terms on both the revocation sentence and the sentence for the…”
State v. Cole, 2000 WI App 52 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “He forms this conclusion from the Wis. Stat. § 304.072 (4) statement that a revoked parolee's sentence does not resume until the day he or she returns to prison.”
State v. Joseph L. Slater (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wis. Stat. § 304.072(5) — 2 cases
State v. Cesar Antonio Lira, 2021 WI 81 (Wis. 2021). “In addition, Lira claims that under Wis. Stat. §§ 304.072 (5)3 and 973.155,4 he must 2 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2017-18 version unless otherwise indicated.”
State v. Cesar Antonio Lira (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.