OAH 16-1100-20938-2
STATE OF
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
|
In the
Matter of George Joseph
Hecker |
FINAL
ORDER |
The matter came on for hearing before Administrative Law Judge Manuel J. Cervantes (ALJ) on December 16, 2009, pursuant to a Notice and Order for Hearing, filed by the Department on November 3, 2009. Krista Guinn Fink, Associate Legal Counsel, appeared by telephone on behalf of the Minnesota Department of Corrections (Department). George Hecker (Respondent) appeared by telephone on his own behalf.
Also on November 3, 2009, the Department filed a Motion for Summary Disposition. On November 6, 2009, the ALJ sent Respondent a letter explaining the Summary Disposition process and permitted Respondent an opportunity to respond until November 23, 2009. Respondent provided a letter response on November 17, 2009. The Department submitted its proposed Order on December 23, 2009. The record closed on January 6, 2010, after permitting Respondent an opportunity to object to the proposed Order.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
Whether the Department is authorized to collect three hundred
dollars ($300.00) for supervision fees through revenue recapture.
The ALJ concludes that Respondent failed to
show by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to a proration of
supervision fees because his release was less than one year and, therefore, the
$300.00 supervision fee was properly imposed by the Department.
Based upon all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the ALJ, having heard the arguments of the parties, hereby makes the following:
ORDER
1. The Department of Corrections’ motion for summary disposition is hereby GRANTED;
2. The Department of Corrections is authorized to continue with revenue recapture without further proceedings; and
3. This matter is hereby DISMISSED.
Dated: January 6,
2010
s/Manuel
J. Cervantes
|
MANUEL J. CERVANTES Administrative Law Judge |
NOTICE
This Order is a final decision. The judicial review provisions of Minn. Stat.
§§ 14.63 to 14.68 apply to this decision.
MEMORANDUM
I. Jurisdiction
The ALJ and the Department have
jurisdiction pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 14.57 and 270A.09. The Respondent was given notice of the
hearing in this matter and the Department has complied with all relevant
procedural requirements.
ll. Contention of the Parties
Respondent contests the revenue recapture of supervision fees
issued for the four month period of supervised release. He argues for a proration of the fees because
his release was less than one year. The
Department maintains there is a flat supervision fee of $300.00 per felony
level case, regardless of whether the release was less than a year or greater
than a year. The Department policy does
not permit proration of fees.
lII. Procedural Standard
Summary disposition is the administrative
equivalent of summary judgment in district court practice. Summary disposition is appropriate where
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and one party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law when the law is applied to those undisputed facts.[1] The Office of Administrative Hearings has
generally followed summary judgment standards developed in judicial courts when
considering motions for summary disposition in contested case matters.[2] A genuine issue is considered one that is not
frivolous or a sham, and a material fact is one whose resolution will affect
the result or outcome of the case.[3]
A moving party has the initial
responsibility of showing no material fact is in dispute. To successfully resist a motion for summary
judgment, the nonmoving party must show that there are specific facts in
dispute that have a bearing on the outcome of the case.[4] When considering a motion for summary
judgment, the Court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party.[5] All doubts and factual inferences must be
resolved against the moving party.[6] The ALJ is to make a recommendation about the
appropriate interpretation of the law and about how that law applies to the
undisputed facts.
IV. Facts
There is no genuine issue of material fact
in this case. On June 10, 2005, George Hecker was
committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections for 34 months for the
felony level offense of Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct. Including the statutory conditional release
term, Respondent’s sentence expires on April 29, 2012. On May 18, 2009, Respondent was released to
intensive supervised release, and a fee of $300.00 was imposed.
By letter dated May 18, 2009, Respondent
was notified of the requirement to pay the supervision fees. Supervision fees are assessed in the amount of
$300.00 per felony case file.
Respondent did not pay the supervision
fee. On September 23, 2009, Respondent’s
probationary release was revoked because he failed to adhere to the conditions
of his supervised release. Respondent
was on supervised release for approximately four months. Pursuant to Department policy, upon
revocation of release and return to incarceration, any outstanding supervision
fee is immediately submitted for revenue recapture.
By letter dated September 25, 2009, Respondent
was advised of the revenue recapture claim and he was advised of his right to
contest the claim in accordance with § 270A.08, subd. 2. Respondent was on intensive supervised release
for less than his full term of supervised release. On October 5, 2009, the Department received a
letter from Respondent stating that he wished to contest the claim based on the
fact that he was only supervised for about four months, rather than the entire
term, and requested a reduction in the fee.
V.
Analysis
Offenders released to supervision in the
custody of the Department are required to pay supervision fees under Minn.
Stat. § 241.272 and DOC Policy 201.013. Pursuant
to the Department’s written policy, the amount an offender owes for supervision
fees is unrelated to the duration of the supervised release. Rather, all offenders being supervised on a
felony level sentence are required to pay a flat $300.00 amount per case file. Proration of fees is not permitted and,
therefore, Respondent’s claim must be denied.
M. J. C.
[1] Sauter
v. Sauter, 70 N.W.2d 351, 353 (
[2] See
[3] Illinois
Farmers Insurance Co. v. Tapemark Co., 273 N.W.2d 630, 634 (
[4] Thiele
v. Stitch, 425 N.W.2d 580, 583 (
[5] Ostendorf
v. Kenyon, 347 N.W.2d 834 (
[6]
See, e.g., Thompson v. Campbell, 845
F. Supp. 665, 672 (D. Minn. 1994); Thiele
v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 583 (