State v. Antonio P. Shaw, Jr.

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS
110 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 215
P.O. BOX 1688
MADISON, WISCONSIN 53701-1688
Telephone (608) 266-1880
TTY: (800) 947-3529
Facsimile (608) 267-0640
Web Site: www.wicourts.gov
DISTRICT IV
October 1, 2026
To:
Hon. Ramona A. Gonzalez
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Tammy Pedretti
Clerk of Circuit Court
La Crosse County Courthouse
Electronic Notice
John Blimling
Electronic Notice
Catherine Malchow
Electronic Notice
Antonio P. Shaw Jr.
10839 S. Emerald Ave.
Chicago, IL 60628
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2025AP1432-CRNM State of Wisconsin v. Antonio P. Shaw, Jr. (L.C. # 2017CF797)
Before Graham, P.J., Blanchard, and Ziegler, JJ.
Summary disposition orders may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or
authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).
Attorney Catherine Malchow, as appointed counsel for Antonio Shaw, filed a no-merit
report pursuant to WIS. STAT. RULE 809.32 (2023-24)1 and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967). Counsel provided Shaw with a copy of the report, and both counsel and this court
advised him of his right to file a response. Shaw has not responded. We conclude that this case
is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21. After our independent
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.

No. 2025AP1432-CRNM
2
review of the record, we conclude that there is no arguable merit to any issue that could be raised
on appeal.
This appeal relates only to sentence credit. By way of background, in 2019, Shaw was
convicted of two counts, count one and count three, in this criminal case. On count one, the
circuit court imposed and stayed a prison sentence of seven years, and it placed Shaw on
probation for three years. On count three, the court imposed a one-year jail sentence, to be
served concurrently with count one. In practical effect, then, Shaw would spend the first year
both on probation and serving a jail sentence, with two years of probation to follow, assuming
that his probation was not revoked at some point in those three years.
Shaw’s probation was revoked in September 2022, and he began serving the imposed and
stayed prison sentence of seven years. In May 2024, Shaw moved to amend the judgment of
conviction to give him credit against the prison sentence for the time he spent serving the jail
sentence, in 2019 and 2020. The circuit court denied the motion.
As a threshold matter, we observe that it is not entirely clear what the procedural basis
was for Shaw’s motion. Shaw sought to amend the judgment of conviction, but he was not
moving to correct any error or omission in the judgment of conviction that was based on the
original sentencing. That is because, at the time the court entered that judgment, Shaw had not
yet served the jail sentence, and the court could not have given him credit for serving that jail
sentence. Nor was Shaw moving to correct an error or omission as to presentence credit that
should have been given in a new judgment entered after his probation was revoked. That is
because no sentencing after revocation occurred in this case; the prison sentence had already

No. 2025AP1432-CRNM
3
been imposed and stayed as part of the original judgment, and after his probation was revoked,
Shaw began serving the prison term without further court action.
It appears that, rather than seeking to amend an error or omission in a court judgment,
Shaw was actually seeking review of the sentence credit decision that was made administratively
during the probation revocation process, and specifically, a modification of his mandatory
release date as determined by the Department of Corrections. Although this was not how his
motion was presented, no such objection was made during the circuit court proceedings. Having
made these observations about the procedural basis for Shaw’s motion, we proceed to address
the arguments that were made during the circuit court proceedings, which are the subject of
counsel’s no merit report.
Shaw’s argument in the circuit court was founded on language in the original judgment of
conviction for the jail sentence on count three. The judgment stated that the jail sentence would
be “[c]oncurrent with the prison sentence on Ct 1.” (Emphasis added.) As argued by Shaw
during the motion hearing, the language of the judgment shows that the jail sentence was not
meant to be served concurrently with the probation term on count one, and instead could become
concurrent only when that probation was revoked and he began to serve the prison sentence.
Therefore, he argued, his time serving the jail sentence should, in effect, also be counted as time
serving the prison sentence. The circuit court determined that the wording in the judgment was
“inaccurate”—the judgment should have stated that the jail sentence on count three would be
concurrent with count one, and should not have been limited to “the prison sentence” on that
count. The court denied Shaw’s motion for sentence credit.

No. 2025AP1432-CRNM
4
Shaw’s argument has no arguable merit because, regardless of how the judgment phrased
the concurrent nature of the sentences, the jail and prison terms were not, in fact, served
concurrently in time. As can be seen from the dates above, the jail sentence was already served
and over in 2020, more than two years before the prison sentence began. The jail sentence that
Shaw served on count three ran concurrently with the probation time on count one, not with the
prison sentence. Nor was the jail sentence on count three a form of presentence custody for
purposes of the prison time on count one. Instead, it was merely time spent serving a different
and non-concurrent sentence, which is not a basis for sentence credit, as explained in the no-
merit report.
Our review of the record discloses no other potential issues for appeal.
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the order denying sentence credit is summarily affirmed. See WIS.
STAT. RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Malchow is relieved of further representation
of Shaw in this matter. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.32(3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this summary disposition order will not be published.
Samuel A. Christensen
Clerk of Court of Appeals