In State v. Thompson, 208 Wis. 2d 253, 559 N.W.2d 917 (Ct. App. 1997), Thompson was convicted of additional crimes while on probation for a conviction with an imposed and stayed sentence. For the new convictions, the court sentenced Thompson to prison terms running consecutive to each other and to any other previously imposed sentence. See id. at 255. Thompson objected, arguing that the court could not impose consecutive sentences because his probation had not been revoked. See id. The Court noted that the language in Wis. Stat. 973.15 had been amended since Drinkwater v. State, 69 Wis. 2d 60, 230 N.W.2d 126 (1975) and no longer required that consecutive sentences run with another sentence a defendant was "then serving." See Thompson, 208 Wis. 2d at 257. Holding that the court had the authority to impose its sentence on Thompson, the Court stated: "Thompson argues that the previous sentence is not actually imposed until probation is revoked. This assertion is incorrect. Thompson's sentence in the previous case was imposed at the time of sentencing. The trial court did not withhold sentencing, but rather stayed the sentence actually imposed and placed Thompson on probation. Revocation of probation is not required to actually impose the sentence. The revocation merely triggers the execution or implementation of the sentence." (208 Wis. 2d at 256-57.)