The Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office (DA) recommends denial of this claim. The DA points to the fact that the claimant was charged and convicted of burglary as a habitual criminal. The habitual criminality penalty enhancer allowed for a sentence up to 16 years, therefore, the 12 year sentence was not excessive. The DA notes that the claimant’s original judgement of conviction did not reflect the habitual criminality enhancer, which was corrected in 2014 by the court.
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. Mekious D. Bullock, Sr. of Waupun, Wisconsin claims $40.48 for the cost of a Norelco razor allegedly damaged by DOC staff. The claimant is an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution (WCI). He alleges that WCI property staff routinely invent reasons for seizing property they either don’t want inmates to have or that inmates can no longer purchase. He alleges that when staff inventoried and inspected his property in June 2015, his razor was in good working condition. However, WCI staff seized the razor as contraband, declaring it altered because the trimmer blades would not stay in the trimmer. The claimant contacted property staff to get more details regarding what was wrong with the razor and staff then responded that the trimmer blades were “missing.” The claimant believes that the fact that WCI staff gave two different answers regarding the trimmer blades proves that staff was negligent in handling his property. The claimant filed an Inmate Complaint regarding the razor on June 19, 2015. The claimant states that DOC rules require a response within 20 working days, however, DOC did not respond to his complaint until November 3, 2015, almost four and a half months later. The claimant believes this shows that DOC does not follow its own rules and that WCI staff likely broke his razor and then lied about it. He requests reimbursement for the cost of the razor.
DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC records indicate that during an inspection, WCI staff found that the razor’s trimmer blade would not stay in the trimmer. DOC denies that staff mishandled the razor; when staff opened the trimmer, the trimmer blade simply popped out because it was not secure and would not stay in place. DOC notes that if staff had inadvertently damaged the razor, they would have written an incident report, which they did not. DOC policies state that altered or damaged property items are deemed to be contraband and must be either disposed of or sent out by the inmate. Finally DOC points out that the claimant did not appeal the institution’s decision regarding his complaint and has therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. DOC believes the claimant has submitted no evidence that WCI staff damaged his property and requests denial of this claim.
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.
7. David W. Orr of Waupun, Wisconsin claims $280.25 for value of property allegedly lost due to DOC negligence. The claimant is an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution. On February 19, 2015, the claimant was moved from the general population to temporary lock up (TLU). Upon transfer to TLU, DOC staff is responsible for inventorying and packing an inmate’s property. The claimant alleges that his property was properly stored in his locked footlocker at the time of his transfer to TLU. He believes DOC staff did not take custody of his property in a timely fashion, thus allowing his cellmate to steal some of his property. The claimant states that it is common knowledge among inmates that there is often a delay of hours or days before staff packs up property when an inmate goes to TLU, therefore, those who wish to steal another inmate’s property have ample opportunity to do so because of DOC’s lax protocols. The clamant believes that DOC staff has a duty to compare the property in an inmate’s cell with the Property Inventory Form when packing an inmate’s property. This form would show what property the inmate possessed when he arrived at the institution, allowing staff to document any property subsequently received by the inmate. The claimant states that DOC staff failed to do this when they packed his property. Finally, the claimant refutes DOC’s allegation that he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The claimant filed an inmate complaint, however DOC took no action on his complaint until four or five months after he had filed this Claims Board claim. Rather than appeal DOC’s decision, the claimant chose to simply continue with this claim. Because the Claims Board is not a court of law, the claimant does not believe he is required to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing a claim with the Claims Board. He requests reimbursement for items he believes were stolen by a third party due to DOC’s negligence.
DOC recommends denial of this claim. When inmates are placed in TLU, their property is taken under staff control, packed, and sent to the institution’s property department for inspection and inventory. DOC points to various property inventory forms which show what property was in the claimant’s cell when he was transferred to TLU, what he was wearing when transferred, and the items in his cell at the time of his transfer that were designated contraband and destroyed. DOC states that any property not listed on those forms would not have been under staff control. DOC notes that the claimant admits that his own cellmate stole the property before it was under staff control. DOC believes it cannot be held liable for the actions of an inmate who steals another inmate’s property. DOC notes that the claimant did not appeal the institution’s decision of his inmate complaint, and therefore has not exhausted his administrative remedies. DOC believes the claimant has presented no evidence of negligence on the part of DOC staff and recommends the claim be denied.
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.
8. Cornelius R. Reed of Stanley, Wisconsin petitions the board for a rehearing of his Innocent Convict Compensation claim, previously denied by the board on December 15, 2015.
The Board concludes that the petition for rehearing fails to meet the criteria for granting a rehearing under § 227.49(3)(a)-(c), Wis. Stats., and is therefore denied.
The Board concludes:
That the following identified claimants are denied:
Craig S. Greiger
Susan Roloff
Terry Miller
Mekioius D. Bullock, Sr.
David W. Orr
Cornelius R. Reed (Request for Rehearing)
That decision of the following claim is deferred to a later date:
Donna Cvetan
That payment of the amounts below to the identified claimants from the following statutory appropriations is justified under § 775.05, Stats:  
Clontech Laboratories, Inc. $4,770.00 § 20.144(1)(g), Wis. Stats.
Dated at Madison, Wisconsin this 5th day of April, 2016.
COREY FINKELMEYER
Chair, Representative of the Attorney General
GREGORY D. MURRAY
Secretary, Representative of the Secretary of Administration
KATIE E. IGNATOWSKI
Representative of the Governor
LUTHER OLSEN
Senate Finance Committee
_____________
State of Wisconsin
Claims Board
April 12, 2016
Enclosed are three additional reports of the State Claims Board covering the claims heard on March 16, 2016. Those claims approved for payment pursuant to the provisions of s.16.007 and 775.05 Stats., have been paid directly by the Board.
This report is for the information of the Legislature, The Board would appreciate your acceptance and publication of it in the Journal to inform the members of the Legislature.
Sincerely,
GREGORY D. MURRAY
Secretary
STATE OF WISCONSIN CLAIMS BOARD
CLAIM OF: MAURICE J. CORBINE
CLAIM NO. 2015-047-CONV
Decision
The Claims Board considered this matter on March 16, 2016. Claimant, Maurice J. Corbine, did not request a hearing. The Claims Board reviewed the written materials submitted by Corbine. The Sawyer County District Attorney’s Office declined to submit a written response to this claim.
Background
This is a claim for Innocent Convict Compensation pursuant to § 775.05, Wis. Stats. The claim relates to Corbine’s 2011 conviction for Operating While Intoxicated (5th) and Operating While Revoked (2nd). Corbine states he is innocent of this crime. He requests $90,000 for the three years he spent in prison.
Claimant’s Facts and Argument
Corbine states that on September 28, 2007, he was a passenger in a truck driven by his cousin, Rodney. He states that Sawyer County/Lac Courte Oreilles Tribal Police Officer, Twyla Dailey, pulled in behind the truck approximately 10-15 seconds after Rodney parked it in the parking lot of a local tavern. Officer Dailey arrested Corbine for OWI. Officer Dailey’s report stated that she followed the truck into the parking lot because she had observed it speeding and that she pulled in immediately after the truck. Officer Dailey also reported that she observed Corbine exit the driver’s side door, walk around the front of the truck and up to the passenger side door. Corbine alleges that he had already exited the vehicle and was approaching the tavern when Officer Daily arrived and that he had walked back to the passenger side of the truck because he did not have a driver’s license.
Corbine alleges that both he and Rodney told Officer Dailey that Rodney had been driving the truck, not Corbine, who admits that he was intoxicated at the time. Corbine states that Officer Dailey informed him that her in-car camera was recording the incident. Officer Dailey transported Corbine to the Sawyer County Jail, where he saw her insert a DVD into the booking room recording equipment. Corbine states that Dailey again told him the interview was being recorded. Corbine alleges that during the entirety of his interaction with Officer Dailey, both in the parking lot and at the jail, he repeatedly told her that he was not the driver of the vehicle but she persisted in arresting him. Corbine believes that Officer Dailey targeted him personally because she is corrupt.
Prior to his trial, Corbine’s attorney requested copies of the in-car and booking room videos from the night of the arrest, however, the Sawyer County District Attorney’s Office did not produce the videos, claiming that they could not find them. Corbine was convicted in 2011 and sentenced to 3 years in prison and 3 years supervision.
In 2013, Corbine appealed his conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney (Hoffman) had failed to adequately investigate the failure of Sawyer County to produce the jailhouse video recording. The court of appeals remanded to the trial court for a Machner hearing. After the Machner hearing, the trial court ruled that Hoffman had adopted a reasonable strategy by not pursuing the video recording because it would have shown Corbine intoxicated and behaving aggressively and that the recording would likely not have changed the outcome of the trial. Corbine appealed the trial court’s ruling.
On February 10, 2015, the court of appeals reversed his conviction. Corbine was released on that same day, having completed serving his sentence. The court pointed to Hoffman’s testimony at the Machner hearing that he had relied on a description of what was on the jailhouse video based on a conversation he had with an unknown individual at Sawyer County. The court found: “Hoffman acknowledged he did not know the identity of the person who had allegedly viewed the video and therefore had no basis on which to determine whether that person was reliable…Further, Hoffman testified that his belief that the video portrayed Corbine in a poor light as based upon his review of the police report—not from something the unidentified person may have said. Finally, Hoffman testified he took no further steps to locate the DVD after he was told it was missing, and he never considered further action such as filing a motion.” In addition, the court also found that Hoffman was deficient by failing to ask Corbine at trial whether he denied being the driver, which would have been “highly relevant to the credibility of the defense theory.”
Corbine states that the DVD recording which Sawyer County failed to provide would have supported his defense that he was not the driver and that he had repeatedly denied being the driver during his interactions with Officer Dailey. Corbine believes the Sawyer County District Attorney intentionally withheld the DVD, which would have proven his innocence.
DA’s Response and Argument
The Sawyer County District Attorney’s Office (DA) declined to respond to this claim.
Discussion and Conclusion
Under the standards of Wis. Stat. § 775.05(3), the Claims Board must determine whether or not the evidence is clear and convincing that the petitioner was innocent of the crime for which he was imprisoned.
The Board concludes and finds that it is unable to determine whether the evidence is clear and convincing that Clements was innocent of the 2011 conviction for Operating While Intoxicated (5th) and Operating While Revoked (2nd) for which he was imprisoned. Accordingly, the Board further concludes that the Sawyer County District Attorney’s Office shall file a written response to this claim and make itself available for appearance at a future hearing on this matter. Vote: 4-0
Dated at Madison, Wisconsin this 11th day of April, 2016.
COREY FINKELMEYER
Chair, Representative of the Attorney General
GREGORY D. MURRAY
Secretary, Representative of the Secretary of Administration
KATIE E. IGNATOWSKI
Representative of the Governor
LUTHER OLSEN
Senate Finance Committee
_____________
STATE OF WISCONSIN CLAIMS BOARD
CLAIM OF: RAYNARD R. JACKSON
CLAIM NO. 2014-080-CONV
Decision
The Claims Board held a hearing on this matter on March 16, 2016. Claimant, Raynard R. Jackson, appeared by phone. The Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office appeared by phone in opposition to Jackson’s claim.
Background
This is a claim for Innocent Convict Compensation pursuant to § 775.05, Wis. Stats. The claim relates to Jackson’s 2004 conviction for Felon in Possession of a Firearm, Carrying a Concealed Weapon, and Obstruction of an Officer. Jackson states he is innocent of the weapons-related charges. He requests the maximum reimbursement of $25,000 for the six years and three months he served in prison.
Claimant’s Facts and Argument
Jackson states that on March 25, 2003, he and a companion, Morris Rash, saw a police car pass them as they entered a store. When they exited the store, the squad turned around and followed them as they walked down the sidewalk. Jackson states that he and Rash ran from the officers because they were both subject to outstanding warrants. Jackson states that Officer Lough chased him but that he was apprehended by Officer Dodd. Jackson states that he did not have a gun. Officer Awadallah apprehended Morris Rash.
Jackson alleges that this encounter involved a “rogue” group of District 3 officers: Awadallah, Lough, Dodd, and Dineen, who had a history of framing individuals for crimes and other misconduct. Jackson notes that the prior District 3 Captain had been relieved of command for sending a memo that encouraged officers to make “the thugs” lives “even more miserable than before” after an officer was transferred out of District 3 due to misconduct. Jackson alleges that these four officers planted a gun at the scene of his arrest and falsified reports in order to frame him.
Jackson states that the officers lied about many elements of the arrest. He specifically alleges: 1) there is no record of the “drug dealing complaint” to which the officers said they were responding; 2) the officers saw Jackson and Rash enter and leave the store; therefore, they were clearly not loitering; 3) Officer Lough wrote contradictory reports, one indicating that he picked up the gun while pursuing Jackson and one indicating that he went back for the gun after he apprehended Jackson; 4) the gun the officers claim Jackson discarded was the exact same type and caliber issued to police officers, was not registered or reported stolen, and did not have Jackson’s fingerprints on it; 5) Officer Lough testified at trial that he personally inventoried the gun into evidence, but police records show that it was Officer Awadallah who did so, more than five hours after Jackson’s arrest; 6) Officer Lough reported that he was present for the arrests of both Jackson and Rice, even though the two men fled in different directions and were arrested in different locations; 7) contrary to Officer Lough’s report, Jackson was arrested by Officer Dodd, and Lough had no contact with Jackson; 8) Officer Dodd struck Jackson while he was handcuffed, and took Jackson’s watch and money, neither of which was ever inventoried.
In February 2005, Jackson was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon, carrying a concealed weapon, and resisting an officer.
Jackson’s initial post-conviction counsel, Attorney Lucius, filed an appeal in September 2005. In March 2005 Officer Awadallah was charged in federal court for threatening to plant evidence on a suspect in an unrelated case. Despite the fact that the charges against Officer Awadallah were prominently reported in multiple Milwaukee-area and statewide media sources while the post-conviction motion was still pending, Lucius failed to raise the issue in the motion.
In addition, in 2006 while Jackson’s appeal was pending, the court of appeals released its decision in State v. Missouri. The court granted a new trial to Missouri due to the trial court’s refusal to admit evidence of other acts of misconduct involving Officers Awadallah, Lough, Dodd, and Dineen. Despite the fact that these were the same four officers involved in Jackson’s arrest, Lucius failed to amend his motion. Jackson’s post-conviction motion was denied by the trial court.
In 2007, Jackson’s new attorney, Mr. Gould, filed a motion for ineffective assistance of counsel based on Lucius’s failure to raise issues related to the Missouri decision and newly discovered evidence—Officer Awadallah’s conviction on federal civil rights charges. This motion was also denied by the trial court.
Attorney Gould appealed the denial and in December 2008 the court of appeals ordered a hearing on the issues. In July 2009, the court found that attorney Lucius’s failure to bring up Officer Awadallah’s prosecution and the Missouri decision constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The court vacated both gun-related convictions and remanded those charges for a new trial. In August 2009 the State dismissed the gun-related charges.
Jackson believes that the officers involved in his arrest have no credibility, which was proven by Awadallah’s conviction and the reversal of numerous other convictions based on the same type of misconduct by the same officers involved in Jackson’s arrest.
Jackson points out that he would have only served 9 months for the conviction for obstruction and requests the maximum reimbursement for the six years and three months he spent in prison.
DA’s Response and Argument
The DA believes Jackson has failed to meet the standard of providing clear and convincing evidence that Jackson was innocent and recommends denial of this claim.
Loading...
Loading...