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 with the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
10. Tony C. Franklin, Jr. of Waupun, Wisconsin claims $32.50 for restitution money deducted from his inmate account in an allegedly improper manner by DOC. The claimant is an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution (WCI). He states that his February 2011 Judgement of Conviction indicates that he had to pay restitution as a condition of his extended supervision. In May 2011, DOC began deducting restitution payments from the claimant’s inmate trust account. The claimant states that he contacted the WCI business office several times to inform them that the court had ordered restitution payments only as a condition of his extended supervision and that DOC did not have authority to deduct the payment from his inmate account. DOC continued the deductions and the claimant contacted the sentencing judge to clarify. The claimant points to the fact that the judge sent a letter to WCI on 10/19/11, supporting the claimant’s assertion that restitution was only imposed as part of his extended supervision, not during the confinement portion of his sentence. WCI stopped deducting the restitution payments after receiving this letter. The claimant requests reimbursement for the amount deducted from his account.
DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC states that the claimant was found guilty of armed robbery and received a bifurcated sentence of 15 years confinement and 7 years extended supervision. The court ordered payment of $210 restitution as a condition of his extended supervision. DOC began deducting restitution from the claimant’s account on 5/19/11. DOC remitted all restitution payments to the claimant’s victim. DOC stopped making restitution deductions from the claimant’s account after 8/25/11 and inactivated the restitution obligation on the claimant’s inmate account on 9/17/11. On 10/19/11, DOC received a letter from the court indicating that there was no requirement that restitution for the case be taken from the claimant’s inmate account. However, DOC states that it has broad authority permitting such deductions. Pursuant to § 301.31, Stats., DOC has control of inmate funds arising from wages and may take deductions from those funds to pay down inmate obligations. § 303.01(8)(c), Stats., gives DOC the authority to determine how inmate earnings are spent and allows DOC to distribute inmate earnings for court-ordered obligations. And § 301.32(1), Stats., provides that any funds gifted to an inmate are under the control of the warden and may only be used for the benefit of the inmate. DOC believes that making payments towards court-ordered obligations benefits an inmate by reducing his debt. In addition, DOC states that WI case law had determined that gifted monies can be considered an available resource of a defendant when the court calculates restitution. DOC believes it is permitted to make deductions from inmate accounts to satisfy an inmate’s lawful obligations, including restitution. However, once DOC became aware the claimant’s Judgment of Conviction stated that restitution was part of his extended supervision, DOC ceased the deductions. Finally, DOC notes that victims of crime in WI are granted an explicit constitutional right to restitution. The funds deducted by DOC have been passed on to the claimant’s victim in furtherance of that constitutional right and are not being held for the benefit of the state. 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 with the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
The Board concludes:
That the following identified claimants are denied:
James P. LaVenture (3 claims)
Shana Zuhlke
Myron E. Edwards
Darrell Otis
Ralph H. Jurgens, III
David Czapiewski
Tony C. Franklin, Jr.
That payment of the amounts below to the identified claimants from the following statutory appropriations is justified under § 775.05, Stats: Dated at Madison, Wisconsin this 31st day of June, 2013.
COREY FINKELMEYER
Chair, Representative of the Attorney General
GREGORY D. MURRAY
Secretary, Representative of the Secretary of Administration
LUTHER OLSEN
Senate Finance Committee
MARY CZAJA
Assembly Finance Committee
_____________
Referrals and Receipt of Committee Reports Concerning Proposed Administrative Rules
The joint committee for review of Administrative Rules reports and recommends:
Relating to the processing of WPDES permits and other permit issuance procedural matters.
Relating to practical exams for chiropractors.
Relating to the duty to inform patients of treatment options.
STEPHEN NASS
Senate Chairperson
