October 7, 2009
|
Jeffrey Walz, OID # 196142 7525 |
Krista Guinn Fink Associate Legal Counsel Minnesota Department of
Corrections |
RE: In the Matter of Jeffrey Walz; OAH
Docket No. 11-1100-20833-2
Dear Mr. Walz and
Ms. Fink:
I recently received the Notice of and Order for Hearing in the above matter. As you know, a telephone conference call has been scheduled to be held on Wednesday, October 21, 2009, commencing at 9:30 a.m. In order to participate in this telephone hearing, you must call 1-866-762-1799 at that time, and enter the passcode 4769626#.
If Mr. Walz disagrees with the Department’s imposition of supervision fees, he must participate in the telephone conference call on October 21, 2009. If he does not participate, he will be deemed to be in default in this case. In that event, the allegations set forth in the Notice and Order for Hearing, the Motion for Summary Disposition filed by the Department, and the attachments to those documents will be taken as true and the Department will be authorized to collect (through revenue recapture by the Department of Revenue) the amount of $180 for supervision fees.
During the conference call, we will discuss whether
the Department of Corrections is authorized to collect $180 for supervision
fees as alleged in the Notice and Order for Hearing and the Motion for Summary
Disposition. Because Mr. Walz presumably is not an attorney, he should be aware that
a Motion for Summary Disposition is filed by a party if the party believes that
Letter to J. Walz and K. Fink
October
7, 2009
Page
Two
(1) there are no genuine issues of material fact requiring a
hearing and (2) based on the undisputed facts, the party filing the
motion is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If a Motion for Summary Disposition is
granted in its entirety, the party filing the Motion prevails without hearing
further testimony or receiving further evidence. In
other words, if the Motion in this case is granted, no further hearing will be
held and the Department will be authorized to collect $180 through the revenue
recapture process.
In the Notice of Hearing and the Motion for Summary Disposition,
the Department of Corrections is arguing that, under Minn. Stat. § 241.272
(copy enclosed) and Department Policy 201.013 (attached to Notice and Order for
Hearing), offenders released to supervision in the custody of the Commissioner
of Corrections are required to pay supervision fees. In this instance, the Department contends
that Mr. Walz was placed under supervision for the
offense of Criminal Sexual Conduct – Third Degree, and supervision fees were
subsequently imposed. The Department
asserted that Mr. Walz remains responsible for $180
in such fees. To calculate the amount
owing, the Department indicated that it deducted the previously-waived amount
of $120 from the typical fees of $300 per felony case file. The Department maintains that there are no
material facts in dispute regarding the supervision fees owed by Mr. Walz, and that the Department is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.
If he wishes to oppose the motion, Mr.
Walz must participate in the telephone conference
call on October 21 and provide argument or testimony to support his position
that the motion should not be granted. He
may, in addition, file a written response in opposition to the motion prior to
the telephone conference call on October 21, 2009. Any written response should be submitted both
to me and to Ms. Fink. In his testimony
or written response, Mr. Walz should set forth any
argument that he wishes to make that (1) genuine issues of material
fact remain in dispute between the parties which make it necessary for the
Judge to hold a hearing and make findings of fact; (2) the Department is not entitled to judgment as
a matter of law due to the alleged inapplicability of the statute or policy
relied upon by the Department or some other legal basis; (3) a continuance
should be ordered; and/or (4) Mr. Walz is
himself entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A party opposing the entry of summary
judgment may not rely solely upon mere allegations or denials of the adverse
party’s pleadings but is required to present specific facts showing that there
is a genuine issue for trial. Any
written response filed by Mr. Walz in opposition to
the
Letter to J. Walz and K. Fink
October
7, 2009
Page
Three
Department’s
Motion may include a memorandum arguing that the Motion should not be granted
and explaining the reasons for Mr. Walz’s position,
as well as supporting information such as pleadings and affidavits. If Mr. Walz wishes
to rely upon facts that are within the personal knowledge of himself
or others, he must provide testimony or submit affidavits of himself and others.
I am
providing this information in the hope that it will be of some assistance to
Mr. Walz in responding to the Department’s
Motion. Although legal representation is
not required in this proceeding, Mr. Walz may wish to
consult with an attorney in determining how to respond to the Motion for
Summary Disposition even if he intends to represent himself during the
conference call.
Sincerely,
s/Barbara L. Neilson
BARBARA L. NEILSON
Administrative
Law Judge
Telephone:
651-361-7845
Enclosure