Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

05/24/83 STATE WISCONSIN v. JAMES STRUZIK

May 24, 1983

STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES STRUZIK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT



Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County: Ted E. Wedemeyer, Jr., Judge.

Foley, P.j., Dean and Cane, JJ.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Foley

The State of Wisconsin appeals an order requiring it to reimburse Milwaukee County for transporting James Struzik from a Minnesota prison to Milwaukee for a hearing on his motion for sentence reduction. Struzik is a state prisoner being held in Minnesota as authorized by sec. 46.051, Stats., *fn1 because Wisconsin does not have enough prison space. Because sec. 782.45(1), Stats., *fn2 requires the county to pay for transporting a state prisoner to court, and because none of the statutes cited by the county relieve it of this responsibility, we reverse the order.

Section 59.31, Stats., *fn3 does not shift the expense to the state because the expense is chargeable to the county. The agreement between Wisconsin and Minnesota, *fn4 as authorized by sec. 46.051, Stats., merely relieves the State of Minnesota of the cost of transporting Wisconsin prisoners. There is no indication in the agreement or in sec. 53.25, Stats., the Interstate Corrections Compact, that the state intended to relieve Wisconsin counties of their payment obligation under sec. 782.45(1).

To construe the sec. 46.051 agreement or sec. 53.25 as requiring the state to pay for Struzik's transportation would also create a conflict with sec. 782.45. Conflicts between statutes are not favored, and we will not hold that a conflict exists if the statutes may otherwise be reasonably construed. See Moran v. Quality Aluminum Casting Co., 34 Wis. 2d 542, 553, 150 N.W.2d 137, 142 (1967). We also do not favor an implied repeal of sec. 782.45(1) by the later enactment of secs. 46.051 and 53.25. See State v. Zawistowski, 95 Wis. 2d 250, 264, 290 N.W.2d 303, 310 (1980). By limiting the effect of the sec. 46.051 agreement and sec. 53.25 to allocating the rights and responsibilities of the two states, we avoid a conflict and we avoid repealing sec. 782.45(1) by implication.

Additionally, the legislature is presumed to know that sec. 782.45 existed when it passed secs. 46.051 and 53.25. See State ex rel. McDonald v. Circuit Court, 100 Wis. 2d 569, 578, 302 N.W.2d 462, 466 (1981). If it had intended to make sec. 782.45 inapplicable where a prisoner was held in Minnesota, it could have provided that the state pay transportation expenses. *fn5

By the Court. -- Order ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.