2009 WI App 115
court of appeals of
published opinion
Case No.: |
2008AP550-CR |
|
Complete Title of Case: |
|
|
State of
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ross B. Brandt,
Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
Opinion Filed: |
July 16, 2009 |
Submitted on Briefs: |
September 8, 2008 |
Oral Argument: |
|
|
|
JUDGES: |
Higginbotham, P.J., Dykman and Vergeront, JJ. |
Concurred: |
|
Dissented: |
|
|
|
Appellant |
|
ATTORNEYS: |
On behalf of the defendant-appellant, the cause was
submitted on the briefs of John M. Yackel of Wendorff, Ellison & David, LLP, |
|
|
Respondent |
|
ATTORNEYS: |
On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of Rebecca Rapp St. John, assistant attorney general, and J.B. Van Hollen, attorney general. |
|
|
2009 WI App 115
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED July 16, 2009 David
R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
|
Appeal No. |
|
|||
STATE OF |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
State of
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ross B. Brandt,
Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from a judgment of the circuit court for
Before Higginbotham, P.J., Dykman and Vergeront, JJ.
¶1 HIGGINBOTHAM, P.J. Ross B. Brandt appeals a judgment convicting him of three charges of hit and run causing personal injury contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 346.67(1) and 346.74(5)(b) (2007-2008).[1] He contends that the charges are misdemeanors under the Wisconsin Statutes and not felonies, and therefore the criminal complaint should be dismissed since it classifies the violations as felonies.[2] We disagree and conclude that the charges are felonies. We therefore affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2 The State filed a criminal complaint against Brandt charging him with operating a motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in personal injury and failing to remain at the scene of the accident, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 346.67(1) and 346.74(5)(b). The complaint states that these violations are felonies, citing § 346.74(5)(e).
¶3 Brandt filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the violations are not felonies. The circuit court denied the motion, and sentenced Brant to six months in jail and two years’ probation. This appeal follows.
DISCUSSION
¶4 In this case we must determine whether the crime of hit and
run causing injury, but not serious bodily harm, is a felony or a
misdemeanor. Resolving this question
requires statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. DOR v. Menasha Corp., 2008 WI 88, ¶44,
311
¶5 “[S]tatutory interpretation begins with the language of the
statute. If the meaning of the statute is plain, we ordinarily stop the
inquiry.” State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit
Court for Dane County, 2004 WI 58, ¶45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681
N.W.2d 110 (citation omitted). While
legislative history is generally employed only to resolve ambiguous statutory
language, it “is sometimes consulted to confirm or verify a plain-meaning
interpretation.”
¶6 Several statutes are relevant to the present case. Brandt was charged with violating Wis. Stat. § 346.67(1), which provides in relevant part that “[t]he operator of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to … any person shall immediately stop such vehicle at the scene of the accident.” Brandt was sentenced in accordance with Wis. Stat. § 346.74(5)(b), which establishes a maximum of nine months’ imprisonment when the accident involves injury to a person but not great bodily harm. Offenses punishable by a maximum period of incarceration of less than one year are ordinarily classified as misdemeanors under Wis. Stat. §§ 939.60 and 973.02.[3] However, § 346.74(5)(e) states that a violation of § 346.67(1) is “a felony if the accident involved death or injury to a person.”
¶7 Brandt contends that Wis.
Stat. § 346.74(5) is inconsistent with the general principles of
felony classification promulgated by Wis.
Stat. §§ 939.60 and 973.02, citing State ex rel. McDonald v. Circuit
Court for
¶8 However, while Wis.
Stat. §§ 939.60 and 973.02 involve the general categorization of
crimes as felonies and misdemeanors, Wis.
Stat. § 346.74(5)(e) specifically applies to the violations. Any inconsistency is therefore resolved by
the principle that when two or more statutes relate to the same subject matter,
the more specific statute controls. Machgan,
306
¶9 Brandt also argues that a close reading of Wis. Stat. § 346.74(5) as a whole suggests an interpretation which designates his offenses as misdemeanors. He points to subsections (c) and (d) of that statute, which explicitly classify violations of Wis. Stat. § 346.67(1) resulting in serious bodily harm or death as Class E or Class D felonies, respectively. Brandt asserts that the legislature would have included similar language in subsection (b) had it intended for violations resulting in injury but not serious bodily harm to be felonies, and as a result this subsection is best understood as creating a misdemeanor.
¶10 However, this interpretation ignores the plain language of Wis. Stat. § 346.74(5)(e)
designating violations resulting in injury as felonies. Furthermore, since violations resulting in
death and serious bodily harm are already classified in subsections (c) and
(d), interpreting subsection (e) in a way that excludes its application to violations
resulting in injury but not serious bodily harm would render it
superfluous. In order to give reasonable
effect to every word of the statute, subsections (b) and (e) must be
interpreted as creating a non-classified felony rather than a misdemeanor for
violations resulting in injury but not serious bodily harm. This plain meaning interpretation is
supported by the legislative history of the statute, which “reveal[s] a clear intent that failing to
return to the scene of an accident involving … injury to a person be a felony.” McDonald, 100
CONCLUSION
¶11 We conclude that the complaint against Brandt correctly classified the charges of hit and run causing injury as felonies because Wis. Stat. § 346.74(5)(e) specifically provides that the offenses are felonies, despite the fact that the offense carries a maximum penalty of less than one year of incarceration. Accordingly, we affirm.
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
[1] All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2007-08 version unless otherwise noted.
[2] Brandt contends, without argument or authority, that he is entitled to dismissal of the criminal complaint for the alleged charging error. Because we conclude that hit and run involving injury is a felony under Wis. Stat. § 346.74(5)(e), and therefore no charging error occurred, we do not address the question whether dismissal is the proper remedy for a charging error of the kind alleged here.
[3] Wisconsin Stat. § 939.60 provides
that “[a] crime punishable by imprisonment in the