By: Derek Hawkins//July 10, 2018//
WI Court of Appeals – District IV
Case Name: State of Wisconsin Ex Rel. Drazen Markovic
Case No.: 2017AP2206
Officials: Lundsten, P.J., Blanchard and Kloppenburg, JJ.
Focus: DOC Authority – Statutory Intepretation
Wisconsin Department of Corrections Secretary Jon Litscher dismissed Drazen Markovic’s inmate complaint, which alleged that DOC acted without authority when it took money out of Markovic’s prison account beginning in 2016. DOC took the money to satisfy unpaid restitution ordered in a 1995 judgment that imposed a sentence that Markovic completed in 2002. Markovic petitioned the circuit court for a writ of certiorari. The circuit court reversed DOC’s decision, concluding that DOC lost its authority to take money out of Markovic’s prison account to satisfy the unpaid restitution after Markovic completed the sentence imposed in the judgment that ordered the restitution. As a remedy, the court ordered DOC to return to Markovic the money it took out of his prison account.
On appeal, DOC raises two issues: (1) whether DOC acted within its authority when it took money out of Markovic’s prison account beginning in 2016 to satisfy unpaid restitution ordered in a judgment that imposed a sentence that Markovic completed in 2002; and (2) if DOC acted without authority, whether the circuit court in this certiorari action lacked authority to order DOC to return to Markovic the money it improperly took out of his prison account.
On the first issue, DOC argues that both WIS. STAT. §§ 303.01(8)(b) and 301.32(1) (2015-16) “independently provide DOC with authority to collect restitution” ordered in a judgment that imposes a sentence that a defendant has completed. These statutes govern DOC’s authority to use distinct sources of inmate money for distinct purposes. Pertinent here, WIS. STAT. § 303.01(8)(b) governs the authority of DOC to “distribute [an inmate’s] earnings for obligations … which have been reduced to judgment that may be satisfied according to law”; and WIS. STAT. § 301.32(1) governs the authority of DOC to use money that has been “delivered” to a inmate’s prison account “for … the benefit of the prisoner.” As we will explain, we conclude that:
On the second issue, we conclude that the circuit court erred in ordering DOC to return any money it improperly took from Markovic’s prison earnings because, under controlling case law, the payment of money damages is not available as a remedy in certiorari actions, and Markovic fails to point to any exception to this rule. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
Recommendation for Publication