Relating to: county sheriff assistance with certain federal immigration functions.
Ayes: 3 - Senators Kapenga, Jacque and Nass.
Noes: 2 - Senators Carpenter and Larson.
Ayes: 3 - Senators Kapenga, Jacque and Nass.
Noes: 2 - Senators Carpenter and Larson.
CHRIS KAPENGA
Chairperson
_____________
The committee on Transportation and Local Government reported and recommended:
Senate Bill 285
Relating to: talent recruitment grants.
Ayes: 3 - Senators Tomczyk, Hutton and Wanggaard.
Noes: 2 - Senators Carpenter and Spreitzer.
CORY TOMCZYK
Chairperson
_____________
Petitions and Communications
hist205604Pursuant to Senate Rule 17 (5), Senator Spreitzer added as a coauthor of Senate Bill 12. hist205663Pursuant to Senate Rule 17 (5), Representative Haywood added as a cosponsor of Senate Bill 268. hist205658Pursuant to Senate Rule 17 (5), Representative Haywood added as a cosponsor of Senate Bill 292. hist205657Pursuant to Senate Rule 17 (5), Representative Haywood added as a cosponsor of Senate Bill 293. hist205660Pursuant to Senate Rule 17 (5), Representative Haywood added as a cosponsor of Senate Bill 294. hist205661Pursuant to Senate Rule 17 (5), Representative Haywood added as a cosponsor of Senate Bill 297. hist205659Pursuant to Senate Rule 17 (5), Representative Haywood added as a cosponsor of Senate Bill 298. hist205662Pursuant to Senate Rule 17 (5), Representative Haywood added as a cosponsor of Senate Bill 301. hist205587Pursuant to Senate Rule 17 (5), Representative Maxey added as a cosponsor of Senate Bill 302. hist205655Pursuant to Senate Rule 17 (5), Representative Haywood added as a cosponsor of Senate Bill 319. hist205672Pursuant to Senate Rule 17 (5), Representative Haywood added as a cosponsor of Senate Bill 320. hist205673Pursuant to Senate Rule 17 (5), Representative Haywood added as a cosponsor of Senate Bill 324. hist205656Pursuant to Senate Rule 17 (5), Representative Haywood added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 61. hist205654Pursuant to Senate Rule 17 (5), Representative Haywood added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 62. hist205674Pursuant to Senate Rule 17 (5), Representative Haywood added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 68. _____________
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Senate Majority Leader
June 12, 2025
The Honorable, the Senate:
Pursuant to Senate Rule 20 (2)(a), I am making the following appointments to the 2025-26 joint committees: Joint Legislative Council
• Senator Testin (remove Senator Feyen)
Sincerely,
DEVIN LEMAHIEU
Majority Leader
_____________
State of Wisconsin
Claims Board
June 12, 2025
Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 16.007 (5), attached is the report of the State Claims Board covering the claims considered at the May 16, 2025, meeting of 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,
JENNIFER L. VANDERMEUSE
Secretary
STATE OF WISCONSIN CLAIMS BOARD
On May 16, 2025, the State of Wisconsin Claims Board met in the State Capitol Building and via Zoom to consider the claims listed below:
Hearings were conducted for the following claims:
Claimant Agency Amount
11. Lucas Litzau Corrections $679,385.00 The following claims were decided without hearings:
Claimant Agency Amount
22. Nathan Kivi Corrections $204.00 33. Rahim Jackson Corrections $2,413.00 44. Jared Andrews Corrections $123.76 55. Brian Grashel Corrections $2,641.50 66. Nicholas Aranda State Fair Park $3,511.64 77. Kenneth Kingsby Transportation $18,640.82 88. Golf Construction Administration $501,900.00 With respect to the claims, the Board finds:
(Decisions are unanimous unless otherwise noted.)
1. Lucas Litzau of Andover, Minnesota claims $679,385.00 for lost wages and other compensation for a five-year period that Claimant was incarcerated, during which time he asserts he should have been in the community on probation. Claimant contends that the five-year imprisonment resulted from multiple errors by DOC -- wrongly interpreting the court’s sentencing order, wrongly revoking probation, and failing to recognize and correct the error.
In Polk County Case No. 12-CF-465, Claimant pled guilty and was convicted of the following: Count 1 (felony bail jumping) and Count 4 (receiving stolen property). He was sentenced on July 9, 2014. (This was a re-sentencing, but that is not relevant to this claim.) The court made the following statement at sentencing:
As to Count 4, felony bail jumping, repeater, on that I’m sentencing you to ten years; five years initial confinement, five years of extended supervision. I am staying that and placing you on probation. Probation is for a period of four years, but that period of probation is consecutive to the sentence in Count 1, which means once you’re done with the time in Count 1 you will begin your probationary period of time.
Claimant asserts it was clear that Count 4 probation would be consecutive to the sentence imposed on Count 1. Claimant notes that DOC interpreted the court’s order correctly on January 13, 2015, at which time Claimant was serving a term of extended supervision on Count 1. In a letter dated January 13, 2015, DOC Offender Records Supervisor Alderson wrote to the court inquiring about the sentence credit to which Claimant was entitled, wherein she noted that in Case No. 12-CF-465 Count 4, Claimant was sentenced to “4 years probation consecutive to Count 1.”
Approximately seven months later (in 2015), Claimant allegedly violated terms of supervision and DOC moved toward revocation. Claimant contends that Agent Nutter incorrectly stated on the revocation paperwork that Claimant was simultaneously serving supervision on Count 1 and probation on Count 4. As such, it was represented that Claimant could be revoked from both supervision on Count 1 and probation on Count 4.
DOC subsequently issued a Revocation Order and Warrant in Claimant’s case on December 2, 2015, adopting Agent Nutter’s representation and ordered Claimant’s Count 4 probation revoked along with his Count 1 supervision. Claimant notes that the errant revocation of Count 4 probation meant that until and unless DOC recognized the error, Claimant would automatically serve his imposed and stayed five-year initial confinement on Count 4.
Claimant asserts that DOC staff are required to review sentence calculations when someone arrives at prison and upon each transfer to a different facility. He understands that process to require DOC staff review of judgments of conviction and sentencing hearing transcripts. Claimant asserts it is not uncommon for DOC to reach out to courts with questions. Claimant contends that DOC had the opportunity to discover and correct the error on, at least, the following occasions:
• December 7, 2015: Claimant’s arrival Dodge Correctional Institution.
• February 12, 2016: Transfer to Green Bay Correctional Institution.
• January 11, 2019: Transfer to Fox Lake Correctional Institution.
• January 2019: DOC was notified of an outstanding warrant in Michigan. As part of the interstate detainer process, the FLCI Warden signed paperwork indicating Claimant was imprisoned on his 5-year term of imprisonment on Count 4.
• 2020: Claimant petitioned the court for early release. FLCI’s Schneidervin completed a verification of time served document, noting Claimant was serving his 5-year term of confinement on Count 4. The petition was denied.
• August 3, 2020: Transfer to Wisconsin Secure Program Facility.
According to Claimant, the error went unrecognized and uncorrected by DOC. Claimant was ultimately discharged from prison in July 2021, at which time he then served the remainder of his supervision on Count 1. When his Count 1 sentence discharged in September 2023, he began serving 5-years extended supervision for Count 4. In December 2023, Claimant wrote to the court seeking early discharge, outlining the 2015 revocation and that the stayed prison sentence on Count 4 had gone into effect. Claimant contends his December 2023 letter is what brought the 1,825 days of unlawful imprisonment to light. The court held a hearing in January 2024 and conducted a review of the file. The court ordered that the judgment of conviction be clarified to reflect the court’s 2014 sentence, namely, to amend Count 4 to show that Claimant’s Count 4 probation sentence was consecutive to the sentence in Count 1.
Claimant contends that during the five years he was wrongfully imprisoned, he could have maintained employment and spent time with family and friends. He seeks reimbursement for that time.
DOC recommends denial of this claim. First, DOC asserts that Claimant did not follow statutory procedures in filing a timely notice of claim with the Attorney General’s Office. Further, based on its review of relevant case law, DOC contends that Claimant is incorrect in his assertion that DOC could not have revoked probation on Count 4 and imposed his 5+5 sentence because probation was not intended to begin until after completion of the sentence on Count 1.
DOC further contends that Claimant’s incarceration was the result of a legitimate judicial process, and Claimant therefore cannot challenge it by asking for damages. DOC notes that when revocation was initiated, Claimant waived a hearing and the final decision was ultimately made by the DOC Secretary’s designee. The Secretary’s designee determined that Claimant’s extended supervision and probation should be revoked, resulting in his previously-imposed but stayed sentence of 5 years going into effect. Claimant served these sentences and was released to extended supervision in July 2021. DOC asserts that Claimant was not incarcerated because of the court’s sentencing order; he was incarcerated based on the revocation order. This was a process wherein Claimant was afforded due process. Although Claimant waived a hearing, he could have had a hearing and been appointed legal counsel. Further, if dissatisfied with the Secretary designee’s decision, he could have filed a petition for a Writ of Habeus Corpus at any time during his incarceration. The Secretary designee’s order indicated that Claimant serve his 5-year term. As long as that order stood, DOC staff had no reason or authority to dispute it. While Claimant now disputes the underlying facts on which that order was based, DOC contends it was a legitimate order.
