The Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently ruled against Steven F. Zastrow in his appeal for additional sentence credit related to a burglary conviction. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that Zastrow is not entitled to credit for time spent in custody while serving revocation sentences from previous forgery cases. This ruling could impact how similar cases are handled in the future.
Zastrow's case began when he was arrested on December 27, 2018, and charged with multiple offenses, including burglary. At the time of his arrest, he was already on extended supervision due to previous convictions for forgery and other crimes. After a jury found him guilty, the circuit court vacated those convictions, leading to a complicated series of legal proceedings.
Initially, Zastrow was sentenced in his burglary case on September 17, 2019, but the court later granted a new trial and vacated those convictions in December 2022. Following a second trial, Zastrow was found guilty again and sentenced on March 11, 2025. The circuit court awarded him some sentence credit for time spent in custody but denied his request for an additional 1,275 days of credit for time served while he was incarcerated for the forgery cases.
The dispute centers around whether the time Zastrow spent in custody due to the revocation of his extended supervision in the forgery cases should count towards his sentence in the burglary case. Zastrow argued that since the revocation was later vacated, the time spent in custody should be credited to his current sentence. However, the court ruled that once a defendant starts serving a revocation sentence, it severs the factual connection to any other case.
The court referenced the principle established in the 1985 case State v. Beets, which states that once a defendant begins serving a revocation sentence, the connection between that custody and any new charges is severed. The court concluded that Zastrow's time in custody between October 23, 2019, and April 20, 2023, was solely related to his forgery cases and not connected to the burglary charges.
Judge Hruz, writing for the court, stated, "The revocation of Zastrow’s extended supervision in the forgery cases and his return to prison to serve those sentences severed the factual connection between that custody and the charges in this case." This ruling emphasizes the importance of maintaining clear distinctions between different legal matters, particularly when it comes to sentence credits.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond Zastrow's case. It reinforces the precedent that once a defendant is serving a sentence related to one set of charges, that time cannot be credited to another case, even if the initial charges are later vacated. This could affect future defendants in similar situations who seek to combine time served across different cases.
Looking ahead, Zastrow has the option to appeal this decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. However, there are no related cases currently pending that would directly affect this ruling. The outcome of Zastrow's appeal could further clarify how sentence credits are handled in Wisconsin law.