5. Alexander Armstrong of Redgranite, Wisconsin claims $250.00 for refund of a DNA surcharge which he alleges the Department of Corrections should not have taken from his inmate account. Claimant was convicted and sentenced in 2001 on two counts of violating Wis. Stat. § 940.225 and one count of violating Wis. Stat. § 948.02. His court obligations, including a DNA surcharge, were paid from his bail bond money at the time of his sentencing. DOC later deducted $710 from his inmate account for the same court obligations, plus another DNA surcharge. He filed an inmate complaint, but DOC only reimbursed him $460 for the previously paid court costs, alleging that he owed $250 for a second DNA surcharge. Claimant states that the DNA analysis surcharge statute in effect at the time he was convicted, Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (1r), only allowed the court to impose “a [DNA] analysis surcharge of $250.” In 2014, that statute was changed to allow a $250 surcharge “for each felony conviction.” Claimant believes that nothing in the statutes or case law allows for charging additional DNA surcharges for each case, victim, or count. He submits case law that he believes supports his argument that this surcharge can be assessed only once for convictions prior to 2014. DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC admits that it incorrectly deducted $460 from claimant’s inmate account for obligations that had been previously paid from his bail bond. The department reimbursed claimant that money. The $250 retained by DOC is for a DNA surcharge on a second conviction. DOC notes that claimant was convicted twice and sentenced twice in two different cases. The DNA surcharged set forth in Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (1r), was mandatory at the time of claimant’s convictions, and remained mandatory after changes to the law in 2014. The court properly assessed a DNA surcharge for each of claimant’s convictions as required by law. DOC notes that claimant petitioned the court to quash the second surcharge in 2009, 2017, and 2019, and the court rejected his motion every time. DOC also notes that the case law cited by claimant is either irrelevant to his case or has been overturned. DOC believes it followed a lawful court order when it deducted the second DNA surcharge from claimant’s account. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
6. Andre D. Hill of Fox Lake, Wisconsin claims $3,139.19 for funds incorrectly deducted from his inmate account. In 2006, claimant was convicted in case no. 03CF2252, and was ordered to pay his victim $3,400. That money was taken from his bail bond and the victim was paid in full. From 2008 to 2015, the Department of Corrections deducted money from his inmate account. Because the inmate account statements at that time did not show the case number associated with the payments, he believed the money was going towards his obligations on another conviction. Claimant was released on supervision in 2015. When he later returned to custody, DOC had switched to a new accounting system, which did show case numbers on inmate account statements and claimant realized DOC was incorrectly deducting money for case no. 03CF2252. Claimant accepts DOC’s proposed resolution that the $3,139.19 overpayment be applied to his current outstanding obligations, with any remaining balance deposited in his trust account.
DOC recommends that the board direct DOC to reimburse $3,139.19 to claimant but that the funds be used to pay his outstanding restitution on another case, and any other outstanding fines, costs, and surcharges. Any money remaining after these obligations are paid will be remitted to claimant. DOC admits that it erred when staff entered the $3,400 victim restitution into the accounting system because that money had already been paid from claimant’s bail bond. DOC acknowledges that because account statements generated by the old accounting system did not show case numbers, claimant had no way to know of the error until DOC switched to new accounting software.
The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the amount of $3,139.19 based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of Wis. Stat § 16.007(6m), payment should be made from the Department of Corrections appropriation Wis. Stat. § 20.410(1)(a). The Board concludes:
That payment of the amounts below to the identified claimants from the following statutory appropriations is justified under § 775.05, Stats: That the following identified claimants are denied:
Joseph Hupf
Gregory A. Allen
Unquail Kennedy
Matthew Vanpietersom
Alexander Armstrong
Dated at Madison, Wisconsin this 30th day of December, 2019.
COREY FINKELMEYER
Chair, Representative of the Attorney General
AMY KASPER
Secretary, Representative of the Secretary of Administration
LUTHER OLSEN
Senate Finance Committee
TERRY KATSMA
Assembly Finance Committee
RYAN NILSESTUEN
Representative of the Governor
