State v. Scruggs
872 N.W.2d 146
Wis. Ct. App.2015Background
- Tabitha Scruggs committed burglary on December 30, 2013; pleaded no contest April 1, 2014, and was sentenced to provide a DNA sample and pay a $250 DNA analysis surcharge.
- At the time of the offense the surcharge was discretionary; by the time of sentencing a 2014 statutory amendment made a $250 DNA surcharge mandatory for felony convictions.
- Scruggs moved postconviction to vacate the surcharge, arguing that applying the mandatory surcharge to her would violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the U.S. and Wisconsin Constitutions.
- The circuit court imposed the $250 surcharge, reasoning (incorrectly) the 2014 amendment was already “in effect” when the crime occurred; the State conceded that timing error but defended the surcharge as civil and nonpunitive.
- The court of appeals reviewed whether the mandatory surcharge, as applied to Scruggs’s single felony conviction, was punitive (thus violating ex post facto) or a nonpunitive cost-recovery measure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imposing the mandatory $250 DNA surcharge as applied to Scruggs violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses | Scruggs: changing a discretionary surcharge at time of offense to a mandatory penalty at sentencing punishes retroactively and violates ex post facto protections | State: the surcharge is civil/cost-recovery for DNA databank expansion and not punitive; application to a single felony is nonpunitive | Held: No ex post facto violation as applied; the surcharge is nonpunitive and constitutional for a single felony conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Radaj, 363 Wis. 2d 633 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015) (mandatory $250 surcharge for multiple felonies was punitive when applied per conviction)
- State v. Rachel, 254 Wis. 2d 215 (Wis. 2002) (sets out intent-effects test to classify statutes as punitive or civil)
- Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1990) (ex post facto concept: laws that make punishment more burdensome violate clause)
- Eubanks v. South Carolina Dep't of Corrs., 561 F.3d 294 (4th Cir. 2009) (DNA fee held nonpunitive where proceeds fund law‑enforcement DNA database costs)
- State v. Brewster, 218 P.3d 249 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009) (mandatory DNA/processing fee held civil and nonpunitive)
- Mueller v. Raemisch, 740 F.3d 1128 (7th Cir. 2014) (registry/fee aimed at cost recovery does not violate ex post facto)
- City of S. Milwaukee v. Kester, 347 Wis. 2d 334 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013) (legislative labeling and intent considered in intent-effects analysis)