Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (2026)
Deoxyribonucleic acid analysis surcharge
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
973.046(1r)(1r) If a court imposes a sentence or places a person on probation, the court shall impose a deoxyribonucleic acid analysis surcharge, calculated as follows:
973.046(2)(2) After the clerk of court determines the amount due, the clerk shall collect and transmit the amount to the county treasurer under s. 59.40 (2) (m). The county treasurer shall then make payment to the secretary of administration under s. 59.25 (3) (f) 2.
973.046(3)(3) All moneys collected from deoxyribonucleic acid analysis surcharges shall be deposited by the secretary of administration as specified in s. 20.455 (2) (Lp) and utilized under s. 165.77.
973.046(4)(4) If an inmate in a state prison or a person sentenced to a state prison has not paid the deoxyribonucleic acid analysis surcharge under this section, the department shall assess and collect the amount owed from the inmate’s wages or other moneys. Any amount collected shall be transmitted to the secretary of administration.
973.046 HistoryHistory: 1993 a. 16; 1995 a. 201; 1997 a. 27; 1999 a. 9; 2003 a. 33; 2005 a. 277; 2013 a. 20; 2017 a. 59.
973.046 AnnotationThe imposition of a single $250 DNA surcharge was not punitive for ex post facto purposes because it was discretionary when the defendant committed a felony offense but mandatory when the defendant was sentenced. The defendant failed to show that the mandatory imposition of the DNA surcharge was punitive in either intent or effect and thus violative of the ex post facto prohibition. State v. Scruggs, 2017 WI 15, 373 Wis. 2d 312, 891 N.W.2d 786, 14-2981.
973.046 AnnotationThe mandatory DNA surcharge under sub. (1r) is not an ex post facto law because the surcharge is not punishment under the intent-effects test. The intent of the mandatory DNA surcharge is not punitive. Rather, the surcharge is intended to fund the costs associated with the broad expansion of the DNA databank and all the activities related to it. Likewise, a review of the precedential factors guiding the court’s analysis shows that the mandatory DNA surcharge does not have a punitive effect. Radaj, 2015 WI App 50, and Elward, 2015 WI App 51, were wrongly decided and are overruled. State v. Williams, 2018 WI 59, 381 Wis. 2d 661, 912 N.W.2d 373, 16-0883.
973.046 AnnotationCircuit courts do not have discretion under sub. (1r) to waive imposition of DNA analysis surcharges for crimes committed after January 1, 2014. State v. Cox, 2018 WI 67, 382 Wis. 2d 338, 913 N.W.2d 780, 16-1745.
973.046 AnnotationPlea hearing courts do not have a duty to inform defendants about the mandatory DNA surcharge as part of the plea colloquy because the surcharge is not punishment and therefore not a direct consequence of a plea. State v. Freiboth, 2018 WI App 46, 383 Wis. 2d 733, 916 N.W.2d 643, 15-2535.
973.046 AnnotationSub. (4) and s. 165.755 (6) allow the Department of Corrections to determine the deduction percentage for these surcharges. Additionally, it is clear from the statutory language of these sections that the department’s authority to collect funds to pay these surcharges is not limited to an inmate’s prison wages. The statutes also provide that the assessments can be collected from the inmate’s “other moneys,” which unambiguously include gifted funds. State ex rel. Bryson v. Carr, 2022 WI App 34, 404 Wis. 2d 307, 978 N.W.2d 595, 20-1949.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1996–2022 · leading case: State v. Jamal L. Williams, 912 N.W.2d 373 (Wis. 2018).
State v. Jamal L. Williams, 912 N.W.2d 373 (Wis. 2018). “Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (2013-14).6 ¶15 Williams then filed a postconviction motion seeking: (1) plea withdrawal based on ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) resentencing because the circuit court relied on Williams declining to stipulate to restitution, a factor Williams…”
State v. Michael L. Cox, 913 N.W.2d 780 (Wis. 2018). “3 *342 ¶ 4 At the sentencing hearing, the Milwaukee County Circuit Court 4 waived imposition of the $250 DNA surcharge set forth in Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (1r)(a) (the "DNA Surcharge statute").”
State v. Tabitha A. Scruggs, 2017 WI 15 (Wis. 2017). “¶7 At the time Scruggs committed the offense on December 30, 2013, Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (2011-12) was in effect.”
State v. Radaj, 2015 WI App 50 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). “See Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (lr)(a). 1 Consequently, Radaj’s DNA surcharge was $1,000, rather than a discretionary $250 amount, the amount that it would have been under the prior law.”
State v. Williams, 2017 WI App 46 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017). “Act 20, §§ 2355-6, 9426; Wis. Stat. §§973.046 (13), 973.047(1f) (2011-12); 5 Elward, 363 Wis.”
State v. Nickel, 2010 WI App 161 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “2d 393 , we held that a trial court is required to demonstrate on the record a proper exercise of discretion when imposing a DNA surcharge pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (lg) (2007-08). 1 Citing our decision in Cherry , Nickel filed a motion requesting the elimination of the…”
State v. Jones, 2004 WI App 212 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “He argues that, since he had already supplied a sample in another case, obviating the need for a sample in this case, the trial court did not have the authority to impose the DNA surcharge.”
State v. Scruggs, 2015 WI App 88 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). “Scruggs appeals from a judgment of conviction for burglary as a party to a crime, which imposed a $250 DNA surcharge pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (lr)(a) (2013-14), 1 and an order denying her motion for postconviction relief vacating the $250 DNA surcharge.”
State v. Trepanier, 555 N.W.2d 394 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “Trepanier contends that § 973.046, Stats., requiring this payment, is unconstitutional as violating equal protection because convicted burglars are the only persons required to pay the DNA surcharge without regard to whether a DNA sample is given.”
State v. Cherry, 2008 WI App 80 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (lr). When the felony does not involve a sex crime under one of those statutes, however, the trial court may order the defendant to pay the $250 DNA surcharge.”
State v. Hill, 2016 WI App 29 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). “It also ordered him to pay a $250 DNA surcharge, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (lr)(a). ¶ 6. Hill moved for postconviction relief, asking the circuit court to vacate the domestic abuse repeater enhancer and commute his sentence to the maximum *249 allowed by law without that…”
State v. Ziller, 2011 WI App 164 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “Ziller filed a motion for postconviction relief, arguing that the circuit court abused its discretion in imposing a $250 DNA surcharge without first determining whether he had the ability to pay it.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.046(1) — 2 cases
State v. Ward, 596 N.W.2d 887 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999).
State v. Trepanier, 555 N.W.2d 394 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “Trepanier contends that § 973.046, Stats., requiring this payment, is unconstitutional as violating equal protection because convicted burglars are the only persons required to pay the DNA surcharge without regard to whether a DNA sample is given.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.046(1g) — 3 cases
State v. Michael L. Cox, 913 N.W.2d 780 (Wis. 2018). “3 *342 ¶ 4 At the sentencing hearing, the Milwaukee County Circuit Court 4 waived imposition of the $250 DNA surcharge set forth in Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (1r)(a) (the "DNA Surcharge statute").”
State v. Williams, 2017 WI App 46 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017). “Act 20, §§ 2355-6, 9426; Wis. Stat. §§973.046 (13), 973.047(1f) (2011-12); 5 Elward, 363 Wis.”
State v. Michael L. Cox (Wis. 2018).
— Wis. Stat. § 973.046(1r) — 8 cases
State v. Michael L. Cox, 913 N.W.2d 780 (Wis. 2018). “3 *342 ¶ 4 At the sentencing hearing, the Milwaukee County Circuit Court 4 waived imposition of the $250 DNA surcharge set forth in Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (1r)(a) (the "DNA Surcharge statute").”
State v. Jamal L. Williams, 912 N.W.2d 373 (Wis. 2018). “Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (2013-14).6 ¶15 Williams then filed a postconviction motion seeking: (1) plea withdrawal based on ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) resentencing because the circuit court relied on Williams declining to stipulate to restitution, a factor Williams…”
State v. Tabitha A. Scruggs, 2017 WI 15 (Wis. 2017). “¶7 At the time Scruggs committed the offense on December 30, 2013, Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (2011-12) was in effect.”
State v. Anthony M. Schmidt, 2021 WI 65 (Wis. 2021).
State v. Anthony M. Schmidt, 2021 WI 65 (Wis. 2021).
— Wis. Stat. § 973.046(1r)(a) — 1 case
State v. Freiboth, 916 N.W.2d 643 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wis. Stat. § 973.046(1r)(b) — 1 case
State v. Williams, 2017 WI App 46 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017). “Act 20, §§ 2355-6, 9426; Wis. Stat. §§973.046 (13), 973.047(1f) (2011-12); 5 Elward, 363 Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.046(1r)(c) — 1 case
State v. Tabitha A. Scruggs, 2017 WI 15 (Wis. 2017). “¶7 At the time Scruggs committed the offense on December 30, 2013, Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (2011-12) was in effect.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.046(2) — 2 cases
State v. Michael L. Cox, 913 N.W.2d 780 (Wis. 2018). “3 *342 ¶ 4 At the sentencing hearing, the Milwaukee County Circuit Court 4 waived imposition of the $250 DNA surcharge set forth in Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (1r)(a) (the "DNA Surcharge statute").”
State v. Michael L. Cox (Wis. 2018).
— Wis. Stat. § 973.046(3) — 3 cases
State v. Tabitha A. Scruggs, 2017 WI 15 (Wis. 2017). “¶7 At the time Scruggs committed the offense on December 30, 2013, Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (2011-12) was in effect.”
State v. Michael L. Cox, 913 N.W.2d 780 (Wis. 2018). “3 *342 ¶ 4 At the sentencing hearing, the Milwaukee County Circuit Court 4 waived imposition of the $250 DNA surcharge set forth in Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (1r)(a) (the "DNA Surcharge statute").”
State v. Michael L. Cox (Wis. 2018).
— Wis. Stat. § 973.046(4) — 3 cases
State v. Michael L. Cox, 913 N.W.2d 780 (Wis. 2018). “3 *342 ¶ 4 At the sentencing hearing, the Milwaukee County Circuit Court 4 waived imposition of the $250 DNA surcharge set forth in Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (1r)(a) (the "DNA Surcharge statute").”
State v. Michael L. Cox (Wis. 2018).
DeLorean Bryson v. Kevin Carr (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
— Wis. Stat. § 973.046(l)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Trepanier, 555 N.W.2d 394 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “Trepanier contends that § 973.046, Stats., requiring this payment, is unconstitutional as violating equal protection because convicted burglars are the only persons required to pay the DNA surcharge without regard to whether a DNA sample is given.”
State v. Beiersdorf, 561 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997).
— Wis. Stat. § 973.046(lg) — 5 cases
State v. Jones, 2004 WI App 212 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “He argues that, since he had already supplied a sample in another case, obviating the need for a sample in this case, the trial court did not have the authority to impose the DNA surcharge.”
State v. Nickel, 2010 WI App 161 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “2d 393 , we held that a trial court is required to demonstrate on the record a proper exercise of discretion when imposing a DNA surcharge pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (lg) (2007-08). 1 Citing our decision in Cherry , Nickel filed a motion requesting the elimination of the…”
State v. Ziller, 2011 WI App 164 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “Ziller filed a motion for postconviction relief, arguing that the circuit court abused its discretion in imposing a $250 DNA surcharge without first determining whether he had the ability to pay it.”
State v. Long, 2011 WI App 146 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Simonis, 2012 WI App 84 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012).
— Wis. Stat. § 973.046(lr) — 5 cases
State v. Tabitha A. Scruggs, 2017 WI 15 (Wis. 2017). “¶7 At the time Scruggs committed the offense on December 30, 2013, Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (2011-12) was in effect.”
State v. Radaj, 2015 WI App 50 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). “See Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (lr)(a). 1 Consequently, Radaj’s DNA surcharge was $1,000, rather than a discretionary $250 amount, the amount that it would have been under the prior law.”
State v. Nickel, 2010 WI App 161 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “2d 393 , we held that a trial court is required to demonstrate on the record a proper exercise of discretion when imposing a DNA surcharge pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (lg) (2007-08). 1 Citing our decision in Cherry , Nickel filed a motion requesting the elimination of the…”
State v. Williams, 2017 WI App 46 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017). “Act 20, §§ 2355-6, 9426; Wis. Stat. §§973.046 (13), 973.047(1f) (2011-12); 5 Elward, 363 Wis.”
State v. Simonis, 2012 WI App 84 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012).
— Wis. Stat. § 973.046(lr)(c) — 1 case
State v. Tabitha A. Scruggs, 2017 WI 15 (Wis. 2017). “¶7 At the time Scruggs committed the offense on December 30, 2013, Wis. Stat. § 973.046 (2011-12) was in effect.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.