11. Kenneth R. Hunter of Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin claims $215.69 for return of monies deducted from his inmate account at Redgranite Correctional Institution. In late 2016, the Department of Corrections switched to a new computer software for managing inmate accounts. After the change to the new software, DOC began deducting money from claimant’s account for allegedly unpaid court obligations relating to convictions in 1987. Claimant filed an inmate complaint which was denied, as was his appeal. Claimant believes that DOC is barred from taking these funds by the statute of limitations set forth in Wis. Stat. § 893.40, as well as State v. Hamilton. Claimant further believes that DOC’s rule DAI 309.45.02 is in violation of Wis. Stat. § 227.10, which provides that agencies may not promulgate rules which conflict with state law. Claimant notes that other inmates have been able to prove the new computer software has double charged for previously paid court obligations and have been reimbursed by DOC. However, DOC has lost account records prior to 1992, therefore, inmates with earlier obligations, such as claimant, are unable to prove those obligations have already been paid. Claimant does not believe it is legal or equitable for DOC to wait 29 years to collect these allegedly unpaid obligations. He requests reimbursement of the money collected by DOC. DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC notes that claimant has provided no proof that he previously paid these court obligations. DOC investigated his inmate complaint and “no incorrect deductions were found.” That decision was upheld on appeal because claimant “presented no evidence to support a recommendation of overturning” the original decision. Regarding claimant’s allegation that DOC is time-barred from collecting these costs by Wis. Stat. § 893.40 and State v. Hamilton, DOC notes that § 893.40 relates to the commencement of an action on a civil judgment and Hamilton applies to a civil action to collect child support. Neither of these standards apply because DOC has not initiated an action against claimant, it is simply following its statutory mandate to collect court-imposed obligations. In addition, DOC notes that DAI 309.45.02 does not violate Wis. Stat. § 227.10, because it is a policy, not an administrative code promulgated by DOC. Finally, DOC believes there is no equitable argument for payment of this claim because the obligations being deducted from claimant go to the Crime Victim Witness Surcharge, which reimburses counties for important programs such as victim social services referrals, compensation, and support. 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.
12. Dennis S. Rivers of Waupun, Wisconsin claims $158.71 for return of restitution money deducted from his inmate account. In August 2008, claimant was convicted in case no. 07CF843 and sentenced to probation to be served consecutive to his present sentence. He was also ordered to pay restitution by January 2099 as a condition of his probation. While claimant has been incarcerated on another conviction, the Department of Corrections has deducted money from his account for payment of the restitution ordered in case no. 07CF843. Claimant states that because his Judgement of Conviction does not state that he is ordered to pay restitution while incarcerated, DOC’s deductions are illegal and in violation of Wis. Stats. § 807.03 and § 807.11. He requests reimbursement of the money deducted from his account for this restitution. DOC recommends denial of this claim. Claimant was clearly ordered by the court to pay $2,426.29 in restitution for case no. 07CF843. Wis. Stat. §301.31 authorizes DOC to use inmate funds to pay obligations of a prisoner that have been reduced to judgement. 2015 Act 355 amended Wis. Stat. § 301.32 to expressly authorize DOC to use a prisoner’s money to pay applicable surcharges or victim restitution, or otherwise for the benefit of the prisoner. Paying down a prisoner’s lawful debts is clearly to his benefit. DOC states that it has lawfully deducted these funds from claimant’s inmate account according to DOC policy and state law and claimant has presented no evidence to the contrary. 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.
13. Charles Wilson of Fox Lake, Wisconsin claims $404 for refund of restitution deducted from his inmate account. Claimant was sentenced in July 2000. At the time of his sentencing his restitution was “to be determined.” Claimant states that he should have been granted a restitution hearing by September 2000 pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.20(13)(c), but that no restitution hearing took place. He alleges that in 2006, Probation and Parole Agent Brian Engholdt submitted a forged document to the court stating that a restitution amount of $5,000 had “been reviewed with” claimant and that claimant agreed with the restitution amount and waived his right to a hearing. Clamant alleges that he never met with Mr. Engholdt or agreed to this restitution. Based on this document, the court entered an amended Judgement of Conviction. Claimant states that he was never provided with a copy of the amended JOC and was unaware of it. The Department of Corrections did not begin deducting this restitution until the implementation of new computer software in late 2016. Claimant states that he first became aware of the amended JOC at this time. Claimant challenged the restitution in circuit court and the court vacated the restitution order and reduced the restitution amount to zero. Claimant requests reimbursement of the restitution money taken from his account. DOC recommends denial of this claim because the department was following the directives of a valid court order and was not negligent. DOC had no reason not to make restitution deductions from claimant’s account based on the 2006 restitution order. DOC is charged with the supervision of inmates, including their funds. Wis. Stat. § 301.32(1), authorizes DOC to use inmate funds “for the benefit of the prisoner” and paying down an inmate’s lawful debt is clearly to his benefit. DOC notes that 2015 Act 355 amended § 301.32 to expressly authorize DOC to use an inmate’s funds for payment towards applicable surcharges, victim restitution, or the benefit of the prisoner. DOC points to Division of Adult Institution Policy 309.45.02, which provides that if an inmate receives an amended Judgement of Conviction, DOC is not responsible to seek reimbursement from the entity that received the funds. DOC believes that doing so would revictimize the victim. Finally, DOC notes that there is an explicit constitutional mandate for paying restitution. The funds deducted from claimant’s account were not held for the benefit of DOC, but were applied towards his restitution obligation, a right due the victim of his crime. 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.
14. Fernando Guarnero of Green Bay, Wisconsin claims $568.08 for refund of restitution and court costs deducted from his inmate account. Claimant was convicted in March 1999. At the time of his sentencing his Judgment of Conviction indicated that restitution was “to be determined.” In December 2000, claimant received a memo from the Department of Corrections indicating a restitution amount of $9,819.38 plus court costs. Claimant selected the “Disagree” box on the memo, which should have triggered a restitution hearing before the court. No restitution hearing was held, and claimant heard nothing further about any owed restitution until November 2016, when DOC began deducting the restitution money from his inmate account. Claimant filed a court action challenging the restitution on the grounds that he had never been given a restitution hearing. The court agreed that the restitution order was not valid and reduced the restitution amount to zero. Claimant believes that the restitution order was illegal, and that DOC should be required to refund the money previously taken from his account. Claimant points to State v. Minniecheske, which specifically states that the Claims Board is authorized to remedy these types of claims.
DOC recommends denial of this claim because the department was following the directives of a valid court order and was not negligent. DOC had no reason not to make restitution deductions from claimant’s account based on the restitution order. DOC is charged with the supervision of inmates, including their funds. Wis. Stat. § 301.32(1), authorizes DOC to use inmate funds “for the benefit of the prisoner” and paying down an inmate’s lawful debt is clearly to his benefit. DOC notes that 2015 Act 355 amended § 301.32 to expressly authorize DOC to use an inmate’s funds for payment towards applicable surcharges, victim restitution, or the benefit of the prisoner. DOC points to Division of Adult Institution Policy 309.45.02, which provides that if an inmate receives an amended Judgement of Conviction, DOC is not responsible to seek reimbursement from the entity that received the funds. DOC believes that doing so would revictimize the victim. DOC notes that although State v. Minniecheske, permits claimant to seek recovery from the Claims Board, that does not justify payment of the claim unless it is legally sufficient under Wis. Stats. § 16.007(5), which this claim is not. 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.
The Board concludes:
That the following identified claimants are denied:
Toyota Financial Savings Bank
Janari L. McKinnie
Frank T. Whitehead
Steven Joseph King
Michael A. Chesir
Alphoncy Dangerfield
Darren Wold
Marteze Harris
Kenneth R. Hunter
Dennis S. Rivers
Charles Wilson
Fernando Guarnero
That payment of the amounts below to the identified claimants from the following statutory appropriations is justified under § 16.007 (6)(b), Stats: Dated at Madison, Wisconsin this 8th day of June, 2018.
COREY FINKELMEYER
Chair, Representative of the Attorney General
CHRISTOPHER N. GREEN
Secretary, Representative of the Secretary of Administration
LUTHER OLSEN
Senate Finance Committee
MARY FELZKOWSKI
Assembly Finance Committee
_____________
Referrals and Receipt of Committee Reports Concerning Proposed Administrative Rules
The joint committee for review of Administrative Rules reported and recommended:
Relating to wild life rehabilitation.
Relating to courses of study for and delegation to chiropractic technicians and chiropractic radiological technicians.
Relating to the Service Award Program.
Relating to an order of selection for vocational rehabilitation services.
STEPHEN NASS
Senate Chairperson