Pruitt v. State
| Decision Date | 09 March 1962 |
| Citation | 114 N.W.2d 148,16 Wis.2d 169 |
| Parties | Charles PRUITT, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Wisconsin, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
On November 13th, 1961, the plaintiff in error pleaded guilty to two counts of an information charging him with the offense of writing worthless checks under sec. 943.24, Stats., and was sentenced to the Wisconsin state prison for a term of one year on each count, the sentences to run consecutively. A writ of error was issued by this court.
Wilkie, Anderson, Bylsma & Eisenberg, Madison, for appellant.
John W. Reynolds, Atty. Gen., William A. Platz, Asst. Atty. Gen., William D. Byrne, Dist. Atty., William F. Lorenz, Jr., Deputy Dist. Atty., Madison, for respondent.
The question is: Can a person convicted of a misdemeanor under sec. 943.24, Stats., be sentenced to the state prison? The plaintiff in error argues he cannot be so sentenced because only felonies are punishable by imprisonment in the state prison and the statutory definition of a misdemeanor, as well as the case law of this state, require imprisonment for a misdemeanor to be served in the county jail. Sec. 943.24(1), Stats., 1 creating the crime of writing a worthless check, specifically designates it a misdemeanor and provides for a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment of not more than one year or both. The place of imprisonment is not stated.
Reliance by the plaintiff in error is placed on Veley v. State, (1927), 194 Wis. 408, 216 N.W. 522, and Grimes v. State (1940), 236 Wis. 31, 293 N.W. 925. Both these cases involved old sec. 343.401, Stats., which was substantially the same as the present provisions of sec. 943.24, Stats. In both cases, the defendant was sentenced to one year in the state prison on the conviction of writing worthless checks, and in both cases the judgment was reversed with directions to resentence the defendant. In reaching this result, the court relied on old sec. 353.27, Stats., now sec. 939.61, Stats., which provided that whenever a person was convicted of a crime for which no penalty was expressed, he could be fined not more that $250 or imprisoned not more than one year in the county jail. It is doubtful whether this section was applicable because old sec. 343.401 expressly provided for a penalty but merely was silent as to the place of imprisonment.
Aside from the correctness of these decisions, they are not controlling, and this court should not now follow their reasoning and apply sec. 939.61, Stats., to the facts before us. Such section has no applicability in view of the enactment of sec. 959.044, Stats., 2 by C. 154, Laws of 1945. This section provides that a sentence of one year may be either to the state prison or to the county jail. Construing this section with sec. 943.24, Stats., under which the plaintiff in error was found guilty, he could be committed to serve his one year sentence either in the state prison or in the county jail.
However, the plaintiff in error strenuously argues such a construction cannot be made in view of sec. 939.60, Stats., which provides:
From this definition, the plaintiff in error argues the implication is plain that one convicted of a misdemeanor cannot be sentenced to prison but must be sentenced to county jail. The definition distinguishes felonies from misdemeanors on the basis of punishability, but does not necessarily control or determine the place where the actual confinement is to be served. A felony carries the potential of imprisonment in prison. However, one convicted of a felony who is sentenced to less than one year may be confined in the county jail without changing the nature of the crime to that of a misdemeanor.
Likewise, one may serve a sentence for a misdemeanor in a prison without changing the nature of the crime from a misdemeanor to a felony. The Wisconsin home for women and the Wisconsin state reformatory are state prisons, sec. 53.01, Stats., and under some circumstances a male person may be sentenced to the state reformatory if convicted of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail or house of correction for one year or more, and a female person under some conditions may be sentenced to the Wisconsin home for women if convicted for a misdeameanor for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for six months or more. Sec. 959.045, Stats.
The conflict in this case arises from the general language defining felonies and misdemeanors in sec. 936.60, Stats., when considered with the language of the worthless check statute, sec. 943.24(1), Stats., which, although expressly designating the crime a misdemeanor, provides a punishment which would constitute the crime a felony by reference to sec. 959.044, Stats. When the statute creating the crime does not designate the place of imprisonment, resort may be had to sec. 959.044, Stats. There are several examples in the Criminal Code of crimes being created where no place of imprisonment is stated and the punishment may be not more than one year. See secs. 942.01(1), 943.21, 943.31, 944.30, Stats. In these cases, resort must be had to sec. 959.044 to determine whether it is a felony and since, under that section, the crime may be punishable by imprisonment in state prison although the actual sentence may be served in the county jail, such crimes are felonies. However, when like or similar penalties were provided for crimes which the legislature did not intend to be a felony, the place of imprisonment was expressly stated to be the county jail. See for example secs. 940.08, 940.29, 941.13, 941.22(1), 941.23, 941.24(1), 942.02(1), and 943.11, Stats. However, in dealing with the crime of a worthless check, the legislature did not state the imprisonment should be served in the county jail and provided specifically the crime was a misdemeanor. We conclude, therefore, the legislature intended the punishment of such misdemeanor, when the sentence is for one year, may, in the discretion of the court, be served either in the state prison or in the county jail.
This interpretation gives effect to the various sections of the Criminal Code. Statutes must be construed together and harmonized. The general statutory rule of construction is when a specific statute and a general statute relate to the same subject matter, the specific statute controls. Estate of Miller (1952), 261 Wis. 534, 53 N.W.2d 172; Estate of Kirsch (1955), 269 Wis. 32, 68 N.W.2d 455, 69 N.W.2d 495; Maier v. Racine County (1957), 1 Wis.2d 384, 84 N.W.2d 76. Sec. 939.60, Stats., must be considered as a general statute defining felonies and misdemeanors, but not applicable to a specific case when the crime is expressly designated to be a misdemeanor. We take judicial notice of the note in the 1953 Criminal Code Bill No. 100, A, page 48, which proposed sec. 339.60, Stats., which is identical with sec. 939.60 adopted in 1955, stating the general definition was inapplicable in the unusual case where a crime is specifically denominated either felony or misdemeanor.
Judgment and sentence affirmed.
I disagree with the majority opinion that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marlowe v. Ids Prop. Cas. Ins. Co.
...subject is potentially in conflict with a more general one on the same subject, the former controls. See, e.g., Pruitt v. State, 16 Wis.2d 169, 173, 114 N.W.2d 148 (1962). Although this case presents a somewhat atypical example of that rule (because we do not have a statutory conflict so mu......
-
State v. Dorsey
...2d 504, 516, 151 N.W.2d 129 (1967) ); City of Wauwatosa v. Grunewald, 18 Wis. 2d 83, 87, 118 N.W.2d 128 (1962) ; Pruitt v. State, 16 Wis. 2d 169, 173-74, 114 N.W.2d 148 (1962) ; Maier v. Racine Cty., 1 Wis. 2d 384, 388, 84 N.W.2d 76 (1957) ; see also State v. Wilson, 2017 WI 63, ¶35, 376 Wi......
-
Townsend v. Chartswap, LLC
...to the plain meaning of the text. Statutes are to be construed and harmonized with one another when possible. Pruitt v. State, 16 Wis. 2d 169, 173, 114 N.W.2d 148 (1962). Here, there are two statutes that speak to providing health care records under Wis. Stat. § 146.83 : Wis. Stat. § 146.84......
-
State ex rel. Gaynon v. Krueger
...or in prison. Likewise, a sentence for a misdemeanor may be served in prison where it is 'not more than one year.' Pruitt v. State (1962), 16 Wis.2d 169, 114 N.W.2d 148. We do not consider sec. 959.044 was intended by the legislature to change the grade of crimes or that this court is requi......