|
|
7-1100-20482-2 |
STATE OF
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
|
In the Matter of Daniel Weets |
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER |
This matter was heard by telephone conference call before Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Luis on June 2, 2009. The hearing record closed on June 5, 2009.
Krista Guinn Fink, Associate Legal Counsel, Minnesota Department of Corrections, and Corrections Agent Rindy Filzen appeared on behalf of the Department of Corrections (DOC). Daniel M. Weets (Appellant) appeared on his own behalf.
Whether the $100.00 balance in supervision fees owed to the Department by Daniel Weets may be collected through the Minnesota Revenue Recapture program?
Based on the evidence in the hearing record, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
1. On October 16, 2008, the Appellant was sentenced for the offense of a Misdemeanor Violation of an Order for Protection, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 14(b). In connection with his sentence on the misdemeanor, Mr. Weets was placed under supervision of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.
2. On November 13, 2008, Mr. Weets met with his corrections agent, Rindy Filzen. During the course of that meeting, Mr. Weets was advised, orally and in writing, that he was liable for a supervision fee of $100.00, which debt accrued at the start of his supervision by the Department of Corrections (DOC). On that same date, Mr. Weets signed an acknowledgement that he had read and understood that he was obligated to pay the supervision fee “as indicated”.
3.
Part of the sentence imposed by Lyon County District
Judge Michelle Dietrich on Mr. Weets for his Misdemeanor Violation of an Order
for Protection was that he had to serve four days in jail, commencing November
15, 2008. Mr. Weets requested that his
jail term be postponed until he was sentenced on another offense in
4.
On November 19, 2008, Judge Dietrich signed an
order for the apprehension of the Appellant, ordering the
5. When Mr. Weets appeared before Judge Dietrich after his arrest for probation violation, he admitted the violation, and, on January 6, 2009, Judge Dietrich revoked his probation and sentenced the Appellant to serve the remainder of his 90-day jail sentence, to be “served concurrent with his other open files.”
6. Pursuant to Division Directive 201.013 of the Minnesota Department of Corrections (Supervision Fees - Field Services, effective July 1, 2008), Procedure B.4., DOC staff is authorized to submit any unpaid balance for supervision fees for revenue recapture to the Minnesota Department of Revenue “immediately…upon an offender’s revocation of probation and execution of sentence.” In accordance with that Directive, the Department submitted Mr. Weets’s $100.00 debt (none of which has been paid) for revenue recapture.
7.
On February 9, 2009, the Department informed Mr.
Weets in writing that the $100.00 balance of supervision fees he owes to the
DOC “has been submitted to the State of
8. On March 24, 2009, the Department received a letter from Mr. Weets contesting the revenue recapture proceeding described in the previous Finding. After mentioning that he was contesting the fee, Mr. Weets noted “I was never supervised on the file mentioned as I requested execution.”
Based on the Findings, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
1. The Administrative Law Judge has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 241.272, 270A.08 and 270A.09.
2. Notice of the Hearing was proper and the Department has fulfilled all procedural requirements.
3.
Daniel Weets became liable for supervision fees of
$100.00 due to the Department for a period of one year commencing October 16,
2008, when he was placed under supervision of the Department for the offense of
a Misdemeanor Violation of an Order for Protection.
4. Effective January 6, 2009, after Mr. Weets’s probation was revoked, it was appropriate for the Department to follow Procedure B.4. of the Department’s Division Directive 201.013, and submit the Appellant’s $100.00 balance of unpaid supervision fees immediately to the Department of Revenue’s Revenue Recapture Program.
5. It is appropriate for the Department of Revenue to collect the correctional (supervision) fee of $100.00 owed by Daniel Weets by means of revenue recapture in accordance with Minn. Stat. ch. 270A, and to remit the collected fees to the Minnesota Department of Corrections.
Based on the Conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
IT IS ORDERED that the Department of Corrections may continue with its request to the Department of Revenue to collect the $100.00 due from Daniel Weets for supervised release fees for the period beginning October 16, 2008, through the Department of Revenue’s Revenue Recapture Program.
Dated: July _2nd_, 2009
/s/ Richard C. Luis
|
RICHARD C. LUIS Administrative Law Judge |
Reported: Taped
No Transcript Prepared
This Order is a Final Decision in this matter pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 270A.09, subd. 3. Any person aggrieved by this Decision may seek judicial review pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 14.63 to 14.68.
Mr. Weets contends that he does not
owe a supervision fee to the Department of Corrections because his Corrections
Agent based in
First, Judge Dietrich’s Sentencing
Order of October 16, 2008, placed the Appellant under DOC supervision. Mr. Weets also acknowledged, by way of a
signed acknowledgment that he had read and understood that he was obligated to
pay the supervision fee, that he owed the Department of Corrections $100.00 in
supervision fees. The fact that Mr.
Weets met with Ms. Filzen and discussed the terms of his probation on November
13, 2008, is further evidence that actual supervision was exercised over the
Appellant in connection with the sentence he received for his conviction for Misdemeanor
Violation of an Order for Protection in
Mr. Weets reasons that, because he “requested
execution” of his
R. C. L.