State v. Cesar Antonio Lira, 966 N.W.2d 605

Lira was convicted in Wisconsin in 1992 (drug) and 1999 (felon in possession and related counts); he was released on supervision but later had parole/probation revoked after new offenses.
In April 2004 Lira fled to Oklahoma, where he committed separate violent offenses, was arrested and sentenced in Oklahoma to 20 years (Sept. 29, 2004).
Oklahoma transferred Lira to Wisconsin on detainer in May 2005 to face Wisconsin charges; he was mistakenly released, fled to Texas, was re-arrested, and returned to Wisconsin in Jan. 2006.
Wisconsin sentenced Lira on March 17, 2006 on the 2004–05 charges and returned him to Oklahoma under the IAD on April 5, 2006; he remained in Oklahoma until June 9, 2017, then was returned to Wisconsin to complete his 1992 and 1999 sentences.
Lira sought sentence credit against his 1992 and 1999 Wisconsin sentences for (a) time in Oklahoma from April 5, 2006 to June 9, 2017 under Wis. Stat. § 973.15(5), and (b) time on detainer in Wisconsin and Texas from May 2005 to April 5, 2006 under Wis. Stat. § 304.072(5) and § 973.155. The circuit court denied; the court of appeals granted credit for both periods; the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed.

Issue	Lira's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether time in Oklahoma (Apr 5, 2006–Jun 9, 2017) must be credited to Lira's 1992 and 1999 Wisconsin sentences under § 973.15(5)	§ 973.15(5) gives a convicted offender made available to another jurisdiction credit for the duration of custody in that jurisdiction, so Lira should get credit for the Oklahoma period	Credit is not due because § 973.15(5) is expressly subject to § 973.155, which requires a factual connection; awarding credit would give dual credit for consecutive, unrelated sentences	Denied. § 973.15(5) incorporates § 973.155; Lira did not satisfy the factual-connection test and cannot receive dual credit, so no credit is due
Whether time on detainer in WI/TX (May 2005–Apr 5, 2006) must be credited under § 304.072(5) and § 973.155	§ 304.072(5) entitles a revoked probationer to credit for custody pending revocation and commencement of sentence, so the detainer period should be credited	The detainer custody was tied to separate Oklahoma-originated charges and was not factually connected to the 1992 and 1999 offenses; mere procedural connection is insufficient	Denied. § 304.072(5) applies only according to § 973.155; the detainer custody was not factually connected to the 1992/1999 conduct, so no credit is due

State v. Brown, 289 Wis. 2d 823 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006) (court of appeals held § 973.15(5) supplanted § 973.155 factual-connection test; overruled by this opinion)
State v. Boettcher, 144 Wis. 2d 86 (1988) (prohibits dual credit for consecutive sentences)
State v. Elandis Johnson, 318 Wis. 2d 21 (2009) (explains § 973.155 factual-connection requirement for sentence credit)
State v. Friedlander, 385 Wis. 2d 633 (2019) (reiterates that § 973.155 governs entitlement to sentence credit)
State v. Carter, 327 Wis. 2d 1 (2010) (credits time when custody is at least partly factually connected to the Wisconsin warrant)