2017 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations
Chapter 973. Sentencing.
973.046 Deoxyribonucleic acid analysis surcharge.
973.046 Deoxyribonucleic acid analysis surcharge.
(1r) If a court imposes a sentence or places a person on probation, the court shall impose a deoxyribonucleic acid analysis surcharge, calculated as follows:
(a) For each conviction for a felony, $250.
(b) For each conviction for a misdemeanor, $200.
(2) After the clerk of court determines the amount due, the clerk shall collect and transmit the amount to the county treasurer under s. 59.40 (2) (m). The county treasurer shall then make payment to the secretary of administration under s. 59.25 (3) (f) 2.
(3) All moneys collected from deoxyribonucleic acid analysis surcharges shall be deposited by the secretary of administration as specified in s. 20.455 (2) (Lp) and utilized under s. 165.77.
(4) If an inmate in a state prison or a person sentenced to a state prison has not paid the deoxyribonucleic acid analysis surcharge under this section, the department shall assess and collect the amount owed from the inmate's wages or other moneys. Any amount collected shall be transmitted to the secretary of administration.
As applied to a defendant who committed crimes before the effective date of sub. (1r), but was sentenced after that date, sub. (1r) is punitive and an unconstitutional ex post facto law. There is no ex post facto problem in applying the DNA surcharge statute to criminal defendants on a going-forward basis. State v. Radaj, 2015 WI App 50, 363 Wis. 2d 633, 866 N.W.2d 758, 14-2496.
See also State v. Scruggs, 2017 WI 15, 373 Wis. 2d 312, 891 N.W.2d 786, 14-2981.
2013 Wis. Act 20 required circuit courts to begin imposing the surcharge on misdemeanants on January 1, 2014, but required the circuit courts to wait until April 1, 2015, before they could actually order misdemeanants to provide a biological specimen for DNA analysis. This multiphase rollout led to an ex post facto violation because it created a class of people who committed an offense before the courts could impose a DNA surcharge. State v. Elward, 2015 WI App 51, 363 Wis. 2d 628, 866 N.W.2d 756, 14-2569.
The imposition of a single $250 DNA surcharge was not punitive for ex post facto purposes because it was discretionary when the defendant committed a felony offense but mandatory when she was sentenced. The defendant failed to show that the mandatory imposition of the DNA surcharge was punitive in either intent or effect and thus violative of the ex post facto prohibition. State v. Scruggs, 2017 WI 15, 373 Wis. 2d 312, 891 N.W.2d 786, 14-2981.
