Section 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) (Lm) 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.

1993 a. 16 ; 1995 a. 201 ; 1997 a. 27 ; 1999 a. 9 ; 2003 a. 33 ; 2005 a. 277 ; 2013 a. 20 . 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 . 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 . Unlike in Radaj , 2015 WI App 50 , in which separate surcharge was imposed for each of multiple convictions although costs of running the DNA data bank would not increase in relation to the number of convictions, as applied to the defendant in the this case who committed crimes before the effective date of sub. (1r), but was sentenced after that date, the imposition of a single surcharge under sub. (1r) was not punitive and not an unconstitutional ex post facto law. State v. Scruggs, 2015 WI App 88 , 365 Wis. 2d 568 , 872 N.W.2d 146 , 14-2981 . The defendant failed to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the $250 DNA surcharge that the circuit court imposed on the defendant for a single felony conviction constituted a punishment and, thus, violated the prohibitions against ex post facto laws in the U.S. and Wisconsin Constitutions. State v. Scruggs, 2015 WI App 88 , 365 Wis. 2d 568 , 872 N.W.2d 146 .