Wis. Stat. § 973.046
Wis. Stat. § 973.046
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 deoxyribonucleic acid 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.