Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 973.04 (2026)
Credit for imprisonment under earlier sentence for the same crime
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
973.04973.04 Credit for imprisonment under earlier sentence for the same crime. When a sentence is vacated and a new sentence is imposed upon the defendant for the same crime, the department shall credit the defendant with confinement previously served.
973.04 AnnotationWhile periods of time served due to an indigent’s inability to post bail prior to trial must be credited as time served on a prison sentence imposed, a court need not credit time served by an indigent offender against probationary confinement. State v. Avila, 192 Wis. 2d 870, 532 N.W.2d 423 (1995).
973.04 AnnotationAn offender is not entitled to additional sentence credit under this section when: 1) the vacated sentence was originally imposed concurrent to a separate sentence; 2) the separate sentence is not vacated; 3) the vacated sentence is reimposed consecutively to the non-vacated sentence; and 4) the time that the defendant requested was served in satisfaction of the sentence that was not vacated. State v. Lamar, 2011 WI 50, 334 Wis. 2d 536, 799 N.W.2d 758, 08-2206.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: State v. Lamar, 2011 WI 50 (Wis. 2011).
State v. Lamar, 2011 WI 50 (Wis. 2011). “Lamar contends that, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.04 (2007-08) 2 , he is entitled to sentence credit for the period between the date he began serving his original aggravated battery as a habitual offender sentence and the date he completed the initial confinement portion of his…”
State v. Richard H. Harrison, Jr., 2020 WI 35 (Wis. 2020). “He also is not entitled to sentence credit pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.04 because sentences for the 2007 and 2008 crimes were not vacated and re- imposed for the same crimes and the requested credit did not arise from vacated sentences for those crimes.”
State v. Avila, 532 N.W.2d 423 (Wis. 1995). “He argues: (1) that denying him credit for the time he spent incarcerated prior to trial because of indigency, against jail time imposed as a condition of probation, denies him the equal protection of the laws; (2) that under sec. 973.04, Stats., the prison time he served…”
State v. Carl Lee McAdory, 2025 WI 30 (Wis. 2025). “§ 973.04 prevented McAdory from receiving credit for the time served on the sentence for the OWI conviction.”
State v. Lamar, 2009 WI App 133 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “ence for the time between when he was first sentenced on the original aggravated battery as a habitual offender charge, to the date he was released to extended supervision on the original misdemeanor bail jumping as a habitual offender charge, has resulted in both a violation of…”
State v. Maron, 571 N.W.2d 454 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “2d 423, 428 (1995) (confinement as a condition of probation is not a "sentence" under § 973.04, Stats., which gives credit for confinement previously served when sentence is vacated and new sentence imposed for same crime).”
State v. Robert Janiel Goines (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 973.04 (2023-24),8 could only be applied to the first sentence, for the first homicide count because the original sentences were consecutive.”
State v. Lámar, 2009 WI App 133 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “§ 973.04. Because Lamar was serving a sentence for the original misdemeanor bail jumping as a habitual offender charge at the same time that he was serving the original sentence on the aggravated battery as a habitual offender, and the trial court made his new aggravated battery…”
State v. Simonis, 2012 WI App 84 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012). “2001), when a person ordered to provide a DNA specimen under Wis. Stat. § 973.04 (lf) is, like Simonis, sentenced to prison, he or she "shall provide the specimen while in prison as directed by the department of corrections.”
Marcus J. Kerby v. Jon Litscher (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 973.04, but it is apparent that the circuit court intended to refer to WIS.”
State v. Thomas F. Ball, II (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “04 when (1) the vacated sentence was originally imposed concurrent to a separate sentence, (2) the separate sentence is not vacated, (3) the vacated sentence is reimposed consecutively to the non- vacated sentence, and (4) the time that the defendant requested was served in…”
DeLorean Bryson v. Kevin Carr (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “Going forward, the Department would deduct 50 percent of Bryson’s prison wages and gifted funds to pay his surcharges and fees.”
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.