2023 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.
History:  1993 a. 16; 1995 a. 201; 1997 a. 27; 1999 a. 9; 2003 a. 33; 2005 a. 277; 2013 a. 20; 2017 a. 59.
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.
The mandatory DNA surcharge under sub. (1r) is not an ex post facto law because the surcharge is not punishment under the intent-effects test. The intent of the mandatory DNA surcharge is not punitive. Rather, the surcharge is intended to fund the costs associated with the broad expansion of the DNA databank and all the activities related to it. Likewise, a review of the precedential factors guiding the court's analysis shows that the mandatory DNA surcharge does not have a punitive effect.  Radaj, 2015 WI App 50, and Elward, 2015 WI App 51, were wrongly decided and are overruled. State v. Williams, 2018 WI 59, 381 Wis. 2d 661, 912 N.W.2d 373, 16-0883.
Circuit courts do not have discretion under sub. (1r) to waive imposition of DNA analysis surcharges for crimes committed after January 1, 2014. State v. Cox, 2018 WI 67, 382 Wis. 2d 338, 913 N.W.2d 780, 16-1745.
Plea hearing courts do not have a duty to inform defendants about the mandatory DNA surcharge as part of the plea colloquy because the surcharge is not punishment and therefore not a direct consequence of a plea. State v. Freiboth, 2018 WI App 46, 383 Wis. 2d 733, 916 N.W.2d 643, 15-2535.
Sub. (4) and s. 165.755 (6) allow the Department of Corrections to determine the deduction percentage for these surcharges. Additionally, it is clear from the statutory language of these sections that the department's authority to collect funds to pay these surcharges not limited to an inmate's prison wages. The statutes also provide that the assessments can be collected from the inmate's “other moneys,” which unambiguously include gifted funds. State ex rel. Bryson v. Carr, 2022 WI App 34, 404 Wis. 2d 307, 978 N.W.2d 595, 20-1949.