Preview:

2001  WI  75
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
Case No.:                                                             99-1734-CR
Complete Title
of Case:
State  of  Wisconsin,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Tronnie  M.  Dismuke,
Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.
REVIEW  OF  A  DECISION  OF  THE  COURT  OF  APPEALS
2000  WI  App  198
Reported  at:                                                         238  Wis.  2d  577,  617  N.W.2d  862
                                                                      (Published)
Opinion Filed:                                                        June  28,  2001
Submitted on Briefs:
Oral Argument:                                                        May  31,  2001
Source of APPEAL
COURT:                                                                Circuit
COUNTY:                                                               Milwaukee
JUDGE:                                                                Timothy  G. Dugan
JUSTICES:
Concurred:
Dissented:
Not Participating:
ATTORNEYS:                                                            For the  defendant-appellant-petitioner there were
briefs and oral argument  by Richard D. Martin,  assistant state
public defender.
For the  plaintiff-respondent the cause was  argued
by David  J. Becker, assistant  attorney general,  with whom on the
brief was James E. Doyle,  attorney  general.




2001  WI  75
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further editing and
modification.  The final version will appear
in the bound volume of the official reports.
No.                                                                           99-1734-CR
                                                                              STATE  OF  WISCONSIN                                                 :   IN  SUPREME  COURT
State  of  Wisconsin,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
FILED
v.
JUN 28, 2001
Tronnie  M.  Dismuke,
Cornelia G. Clark
Clerk of Supreme Court
Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.                                               Madison, WI
REVIEW  of  a  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals.    Reversed  and
cause  remanded  to  the  circuit  court.
¶1    DIANE  S.  SYKES,  J.    The  issue  in  this  case  is  whether
a  circuit  court  may  properly  impose  as  costs  against  a  criminal
defendant   the   expenses   associated   with   executing   orders   to
produce  the  defendant  from  prison  for  court  appearances  in  the
case.     Defendant  Tronnie  M.  Dismuke  was  on  parole  when  he  was
charged  with  armed  robbery  and  possession  of  a  firearm  by  a
felon.                                                                        His   parole   was   revoked,   and   he   was   sent   to   Dodge
Correctional  Institution  in  Waupun,  Wisconsin,  to  begin  serving
the   remainder   of   his   sentence   on   the   parole   offense   while
awaiting  trial  in  Milwaukee  County  Circuit  Court  on  the  two  new
crimes.




                                                                              No.                                                                 99-1734-CR
¶2  During  the  intervening                                                  19  or  so  months,  Dismuke  was
repeatedly  transported  by  Milwaukee  County  sheriff's  deputies
from  prison  in  Waupun  to  the  Milwaukee  County  jail  on  orders  to
produce   for   various   court   appearances.                                He   was   eventually
convicted  and  sentenced  to  prison,  and  the  circuit  court  imposed
"applicable  .  .  .  costs."     The  judgment  of  conviction  set  costs
at                                                                            $957.20;  most  of  this  total  was  attributable  to  sheriff's
department  costs  for  executing  the  orders  to  produce.
¶3    Dismuke  moved  for  a  reduction  in  the  award  of  costs,
contending   that   the   expenses   associated   with   executing   the
orders  to  produce  were  not  taxable  against  him  under  Wis.  Stat.
§  973.06(1)(a)                                                               (1997-98).1                                                         He   also   raised   a   constitutional
challenge  to  the  taxation  of  these  costs.     The  circuit  court
denied  the  motion,  and  Dismuke  appealed.     The  court  of  appeals
affirmed,  concluding  that  the  expenses  associated  with  executing
the  orders  to  produce  were  "fees  of  officers  allowed  by  law"
under  Wis.  Stat.                                                            §                                                                   973.06(1)                                      (a),  because  they  were  collectible
as  "sheriff's  fees"  for  service  of  process  under  Wis.  Stat.
§  814.70(1)   and                                                            (4).                                                                The   court   of   appeals   also   rejected
Dismuke's  constitutional  claims.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ¶4    We  reverse.     Our  decision  in  State  v.  Ferguson,   202
Wis.                                                                          2d                                                                  233,                                           549  N.W.2d                              718                                                              (1996)  interpreted  the  term  "fees"
in  a  related  subsection  of  the  criminal  costs  statute,  Wis.
Stat.                                                                         §  973.06,  to  include  only  those  sums  "ordinarily  charged
1  All  subsequent  references  to  the  Wisconsin  Statutes  are  to
the  1997-98  version  unless  otherwise  indicated.
2




No.                                                                            99-1734-CR
to  and  payable  by  another,"  not  internal  operating  expenses  of  a
governmental  unit.    The  record  in  this  case  contains  conflicting
information    and    no    evidence    about    whether    the    expenses
associated   with   executing   orders   to   produce   are   generally
"charged  to  and  payable  by  another,"  or  are  merely  internal
operating  expenses  of  the  Milwaukee  County  Sheriff's  Department.
The  record  is  similarly  underdeveloped  and  murky  on  the  specific
amounts  assessed  in  this  case,  and  there  is  no  record  at  all  on
the  constitutional  issues.    Accordingly,  we  reverse  the  court  of
appeals  and  remand  the  cause  to  the  circuit  court  for  further
proceedings  consistent  with  this  opinion.
I
¶5    The   record   in   this   case   is   inadequate   in   many
respects,  through  no  fault  of  the  defendant.    We  do  know  that  on
June  12,  1996,  Tronnie  M.  Dismuke  was  charged  with  one  count  of
armed  robbery  and  one  count  of  possession  of  a  firearm  by  a
felon.     Dismuke  was  on  parole  for  another  offense  at  the  time
the  charges  were  issued.     His  parole  was  revoked,  and  he  was
transferred  to  Dodge  County  Correctional  Institution  in  Waupun,
Wisconsin,  to  begin  serving  the  remainder  of  his  sentence  on  the
parole  offense.
¶6  While  the  new  case  was  pending,  Dismuke  was  ordered
produced  from  Dodge  to  the  Milwaukee  County  jail  for  various
court  dates  in  the  case.     The  record  reflects  eight  orders  to
3




No.                                                                             99-1734-CR
produce.2     Most  of  these  were  for  jury  trial.     The  case  was
repeatedly  adjourned,  sometimes  for  reasons  attributable  to  the
defendant  and  sometimes  for  reasons  attributable  to  the  state  or
the  court.
¶7  On  the  reverse  side  of  seven  of  the  eight  orders  to
produce   there   are   notes   from   the   Milwaukee   County   Sheriff's
Department  indicating  roundtrip  mileage  costs  of                           $193.20  and  a
"service"  fee  of                                                              $20,  for  a  total  of                                      $213.20.     The  remaining
order  only  reflects  a  "service"  fee  of  $20.    These  sums  combine
for  a  total  of  $1,512,40.
¶8  Dismuke's  trial  began  on  January  5,  1998,  but  was  halted
on  its  second  day  when  Dismuke  agreed  to  plead  guilty  to  the
armed   robbery   charge.                                                       The   firearm   possession   charge   was
dismissed  and  "read  in"  for  sentencing  purposes.    The  Milwaukee
County  Circuit  Court,  the  Honorable  Timothy  G.  Dugan,  sentenced
Dismuke  to                                                                     15  years  in  prison,  consecutive  to  the  sentence  he
was  then  serving,  and  also  imposed  "applicable  .  .  .  costs."
¶9  The  judgment  of  conviction  set  costs  at                               $957.20.     The
record  does  not  reflect  the  precise  factual  basis  for  these
costs,  but  the  parties  agree  that  all  but                                $20  of  the  total  is
                                                                                attributable  in  some  way  to  the  orders  to  produce.                                                 (The  clerk
of  circuit  court's  fee  under  Wis.  Stat.                                                                                                §                             814.60(1)  is                 $20.)
Assuming   this   to   be   true,   there   is   no   explanation   for   the
2  The  record  shows  the  following  eight  orders  to  produce:
September  4,  1996  (Jury  Trial);  December  16,  1996  (Jury  Trial);
February  24,  1997  (Jury  Trial);  March  13,  1997  (Status);  August
27,  1997  (Jury  trial);  December  2,  1997  (Pre-Trial);  January  5,
1998  (Jury  Trial);  February  5,  1998  (Sentencing).
4




No.                                                                            99-1734-CR
discrepancy  between  the  amount  of  $937.20  ($957.20  minus  the  $20
clerk's  fee)  and  the  amount  of  $1,512.40,  which  is  the  combined
total  of  the  amounts  reflected  on  the  orders  to  produce.
¶10   On   February                                                            26,                                                                 1999,   Dismuke   moved   to   reduce   the
court  costs  from  $957.20  to  $20,  claiming  that  only  the  clerk's
fee   under   Wis.   Stat.                                                     §  814.60(1)   was   taxable   against   him.
Dismuke  claimed  that  the  expenses  associated  with  executing  the
eight  orders  to  produce  were  not  taxable  court  costs  under  Wis.
Stat.                                                                          §  973.06.     He  also  raised  a  constitutional  challenge  to
the  taxation  of  these  costs.
¶11  The  circuit  court  requested  a  "response  from  the  state
and/or  county,"  and  established  a  briefing  schedule,  which  was
supposed  to  conclude  with  the  defendant's  reply  brief  on  May  7,
1999.                                                                          The  record  contains  an  April                                    21,                                                      1999,  letter  from  an
attorney  in  the  Milwaukee  County  Corporation  Counsel's  office;
an  April                                                                      28,                                                                 1999,  letter  from  an  accountant  in  the  Criminal
Division   of   the   Milwaukee   County   Clerk   of   Circuit   Court's
office;  and  two  letters,  dated  August                                     26,                                                                 1998,  and  March                                        7,
2000,   from   an   accountant   in   the   Milwaukee   County   Sheriff's
office.    The  state  did  not  respond.
¶12   The   letters   from   the   various   interested   county
departments  offered  conflicting  explanations  about  the  county's
practice   regarding   orders   to   produce   and   the   source   of   the
authority  to  tax  expenses  related  to  them  as  costs  in  a  criminal
case.    The  clerk's  office  characterized  the  expenses  associated
with  the  orders  to  produce  as  bench  warrant  returns,  and  noted
the   discrepancy   between   the   original   amount   assessed   in
5




No.                                                                           99-1734-CR
Dismuke's  case  and  the  actual  amounts  reflected  on  the  orders  to
produce.    The  sheriff's  department  said  that  it  sometimes  cross-
charged  the  clerk's  office  for  orders  to  produce,  but  only  when
the  order  identified  the  defendant  as  indigent;  otherwise,  no
one  is  billed.
¶13  The  corporation  counsel's  letter  noted  the  practice  of
cross-charging  a  special  fund  in  the  clerk's  office  when  the
defendant   is   indigent   and   the   defense   attorney   prepares   the
order  to  produce  rather  than  the  district  attorney.     However,
the  letter  also  stated  that  "the  Sheriff's  Department  is  not
routinely  reimbursed  for  transporting  prisoners  pursuant  to  an
Order  to  Produce  and  [the  corporation  counsel]  takes  no  position
on  the  authority  of  the  criminal  judge  to  assess  these  costs."
The  second  letter  from  the  sheriff's  department  said  that  unless
fees  are  waived  by  the  court,  the  amounts  reflected  on  the
orders  to  produce  are  "put  in  the  Case  file"  and  "the  Court
makes  the  order  for  the  inmate  to  pay  this  fee."
¶14   The  circuit  court  denied  Dismuke's  motion  by  written
order,  concluding  that,  despite  the  contradictory  information
from  the  various  county  departments,  Wis.  Stat.                         §            973.06(1)   (a)
authorized  it  to  assess  the  expenses  associated  with  the  orders
to  produce  as  costs  against  the  defendant,  because  "the  bottom
line   is   that   the   county   expended   these   amounts   for   the
production  of  the  defendant  and  that  the  defendant,  not  the
county,  should  absorb  these  charges."    In  addition,  the  circuit
court  noted  that  the  actual  amounts  reflected  on  the  orders  to
6




                                                                                                               No.                                 99-1734-CR
produce  totaled                                                              $1,512.40,  not                  $937.20,  and  therefore  ordered
the  clerk's  office  to  recalculate  costs.
¶15   Dismuke  moved  for  reconsideration  because  the  court
decided  the  motion  before  the  briefing  schedule  had  expired,
before  receiving  his  reply  and  without  an  evidentiary  hearing,
and  because  the  court  had  ordered  an  upward  amendment  to  the
costs  in  the  judgment  without  notice.    The  circuit  court  denied
the  motion  for  reconsideration,  but  vacated  its  order  requiring
recalculation   of   costs   to   reflect   the   higher   amount.            The
circuit    court    did    not    address    Dismuke's    constitutional
arguments.    Dismuke  appealed.
¶16   The   court   of   appeals   affirmed,   noting   the   muddled
record  but  nonetheless  concluding  that  expenses  associated  with
executing  an  order  to  produce  were  "necessary  disbursements  and
fees  of  officers"  under  Wis.  Stat.                                       §  973.06(1)(a)  because  they
                                                                                                                                                                         were  collectible  "sheriff's  fees"  under  Wis.  Stat.          §                                     814.70(1)
and                                                                           (4).                                                                 State  v.  Dismuke,   2000  WI  App                                              198,   ¶¶5,                                  12-13,      238
Wis.                                                                          2d                               577,                                617  N.W.2d           862.                                                              The  court  of  appeals  found  our
decision  in  Ferguson  inapplicable,  but  held  that,  even  if  the
case  did  apply,  the  expenses  associated  with  orders  to  produce
would   satisfy   its   interpretation   of   "fees"   under   Wis.   Stat.
§  973.06(1).    Dismuke,  2000  WI  App  198  at  ¶¶6-23.    Finally,  the
court  of  appeals  rejected  Dismuke's  equal  protection  and  due
process  arguments,  noting,  however,  that  the  circuit  court  had
conducted  no  factfinding  on  these  issues.     Id.  at                    ¶¶24-29.     We
accepted  review.
II
7




No.                                                                           99-1734-CR
¶17   Whether  expenses  associated  with  orders  to  produce  a
defendant  from  prison  for  court  appearances  are  costs  taxable
against  the  defendant  under  Wis.  Stat.  §  973.06  is  a  question  of
statutory  interpretation  that  we  review  de  novo.  Ferguson,             202
Wis.                                                                          2d  at                       237.                                The  court  of  appeals  held  that  the  expenses
associated  with  the  orders  to  produce  in  this  case  are  "fees  of
officers  allowed  by  law"  under  Wis.  Stat.  §  973.06(1)(a)  because
they    are    collectible    "sheriff's    fees"    under    Wis.    Stat.
§  814.70(1)  and  (4).
¶18      Wisconsin  Statute                                                   §                            973.06   provides,  in  pertinent
part:
(1)  Except  as  provided  in  s.  93.20,  the  costs  taxable
against  the  defendant  shall  consist  of  the  following
items  and  no  others:
(a)   The  necessary  disbursements  and  fees  of  officers
allowed  by  law  and  incurred  in  connection  with
the  arrest,  preliminary  examination  and  trial  of
the  defendant,  including,  in  the  discretion  of
the   court,   the   fees   and   disbursements   of   the
agent   appointed   to   return   a   defendant   from
another  state  or  country.
¶19   We   have   long   held   that   "'in   this   state   costs   are
regulated   exclusively   by   statute   as   a   matter   of   legislative
discretion.'"  Ferguson,                                                      202  Wis.                                                        2d  at                                                      244      (quoting  State  ex
rel.  Korne  v.  Wolke,                                                       79   Wis.                    2d                                  22,                                                         24-25,   255   N.W.2d          446
(1977)).                                                                                                                                       In  Ferguson,  we  held  that  costs  taxable  against  a
criminal  defendant  are  limited  to  those  specifically  enumerated
in   Wis.   Stat.                                                             §  973.06.   Id.   at        238.                                Interpreting   another
subsection  of  the  statute——Wis.  Stat.                                     §  973.06((1)(c)  relating
to  "fees  and  disbursements"  of  expert  witnesses——we  concluded
8




No.                                                                          99-1734-CR
that  a  "fee"  is  "a  sum  which  is  ordinarily  charged  to  and
payable  by  another."     Id.  at                                           241.                                                       "Disbursements"  under  the
statute  are  "those  incidental  and  out-of-pocket  expenses  .  .  .
ordinarily  charged  to  and  payable  by  another."    Id.
¶20  The  defendant  in  Ferguson  had  been  ordered  to  pay  $105
to  the  State  Crime  Laboratory  to  cover  the  cost  of  testing  the
controlled  substance  found  in  his  possession.    The  State  argued
that  the  laboratory  expense  constituted  a  "fee  or  disbursement"
of   an   expert   witness   under   Wis.   Stat.                            §  973.06(1)(c).                                           We
rejected  the  state's  interpretation  of  the  statute:
[T]he  State  contends  that  because  the  lab  expenses  at
issue   are   fixed,   they   are   fees   under   Wis.   Stat.
§  973.06(1)(c).                                                             We    disagree    with    the    State's
argument.      The  fact  that  the  cost  of  performing  a
governmental  service  can  be  established                                  (fixed)  does
not   ipso   facto   make   the   cost   of   performing   that
service  a  fee  under  Wis.  Stat.                                          §  973.06(1)(c).     To
constitute  a  fee  under                                                    §  973.06(1)(c),  the  cost  of
performing  a  service  must  be  more  than  an  internal
operating  expense  of  a  governmental  unit  which  has
been  prorated  or  costed  out;  it  must  be  chargeable  to
and  payable  by  another.
Ferguson,  202  Wis.  2d  at  242.
¶21   Although  we  are  interpreting  a  different  subsection  of
the    criminal    costs    statute    in    this    case,    Ferguson's
interpretation   of   the   phrase   "fees   and   disbursements"   for
purposes  of  this  statute  is  applicable.                                 Ferguson  concerned
subsection                                                                   (1)(c)  of  the  statute,  which  refers  to  "fees  and
disbursements"   of   expert   witnesses;   the   state   here   invokes
subsection  (1)(a)  of  the  statute,  which  refers  to  "disbursements
and  fees  of  officers."     Words  or  phrases  appearing  in  the  same
9




No.                                                                            99-1734-CR
statute  are  given  the  same  meaning.    State  v.  Charles,  180  Wis.
2d  155,  159-60,  509  N.W.2d  85  (Ct.  App.  1993).
¶22  Accordingly,  whether  the  expenses  associated  with  the
orders   to   produce   in   Dismuke's   case   are   taxable   "fees   of
officers"   under   the   statute   depends   upon   whether   they   are
ordinarily   charged   to   and   payable   by   another   or   are   merely
internal  operating  expenses  of  a  governmental  unit.3     We  cannot
resolve  this  question  as  a  factual  matter  on  the  basis  of  this
record,  and  Wis.  Stat.  §  814.70  does  not  resolve  it  as  a  matter
of  law.
¶23  Wisconsin  Statute                                                        §                                  814.70  specifies  that,  unless  a
higher   fee   is   established   by   the   county   under   Wis.   Stat.
§  814.705,  the  sheriff  shall  collect  fees  for:
(1)   SERVICE   OF   PROCESS.                                                  For   each   service   or
attempted  service  of  a  summons  or  any  other  process
for  commencement  of  an  action,  a  writ,  an  order  of
injunction,  a  subpoena  or  any  other  order,                               $12  for
each  defendant  or  person.
(4)   TRAVEL;   CRIMINAL   PROCESS.                                            For   travel   in
serving  any  criminal  process:
(b)  In  counties  having  a  population  of  500,000  or
more,  $4  for  each  person  served  within  the  county  from
which  process  issued,  or                                                    25  cents  per  mile  if  served
outside  the  county.
3  The  state  does  not  contend  that  these  are  "disbursements"
under  the  statute.
10




No.                                                                            99-1734-CR
(c)  The  actual  and  necessary  disbursements  for
board  and  conveyance  of  the  prisoner.
¶24  Assuming  that  the  execution  of  an  order  to  produce
constitutes   "service   of   process"   within   the   meaning   of   this
statute,  the  record,  such  as  it  is,  conflicts  with  the  fees
allowed  under  the  statute.     The  statute  allows  a                      $12  "service"
fee;  the  orders  to  produce  reflect  a                                     $20  "service"  fee,  also
variously  called  a  "warrant"  fee  by  the  county  departments  that
responded  to  the  circuit  court's  request  for  information.4     The
statute  allows  mileage  at                                                   25   cents  per  mile;  the  orders  to
produce  reflect  roundtrip  mileage  that  apparently  calculates  to
more  than  25  cents  per  mile.    The  record  contains  no  found  facts
(because  no  factfinding  was  done),  only  conflicting  information
from  several  county  departments  about  the  sheriff's  internal
accounting  practices  regarding  orders  to  produce.
¶25   In   short,   whether   the   expenses   associated   with   the
orders  to  produce  are  "fees  of  officers  allowed  by  law"  within
the   meaning   of   Wis.   Stat.                                              §                                         973.06(1)   (a)   and   Ferguson,   and
whether  they  are  collectible  as  "sheriff's  fees"  for  service  of
process  and  travel  under  Wis.  Stat.  §  814.70(1)  and  (4),  cannot
be    determined    from    this    record.                                    The    record    on    the
constitutional  issues  is  nonexistent.
4  The  court  of  appeals  "assumed"  from  this  discrepancy  that
Milwaukee  County  had  authorized  a  higher  fee  under  Wis.  Stat.
§  814.705,  and  concluded  that  it  was  irrelevant  anyway.    We  make
no   such   assumption,   and   it   is   not   irrelevant.                    Without   an
adequate  record  on  the  factual  basis  for  the  costs  that  were
taxed    we    cannot    resolve    the    defendant's    statutory    or
constitutional  challenges.
11




No.                                                                            99-1734-CR
¶26   Accordingly,   because   of   the   inadequacies   in   this
record,  we  hold  only  that  our  decision  in  Ferguson  applies  to
the  determination  of  taxable  "fees  of  officers  allowed  by  law"
under  Wis.  Stat.  §  973.06(1)(a).    This  requires  a  determination
of  whether  the  expenses  associated  with  the  execution  of  orders
to  produce  are  ordinarily  charged  to  and  payable  by  another  or
are  merely  internal  operating  expenses  of  a  governmental  unit.
If  the  former,  they  are  taxable,  provided  they  are  "allowed  by
law,"   which   requires   a   determination   of   whether   the   actual
assessments   were   consistent   with   Wis.   Stat.                          §            814.70.   The
constitutional  issues  in  this  case  cannot  be  resolved  because
there  is  no  record  upon  which  to  resolve  them.     Therefore,  we
reverse  the  court  of  appeals  and  remand  this  case  to  the  circuit
court  for  further  proceedings  consistent  with  this  opinion.
By   the   Court.—The   decision   of   the   court   of   appeals   is
reversed   and   the   cause   is   remanded   to   the   Milwaukee   County
Circuit  Court.
12




No.   99-1734-CR
1

Download 17529.pdf

Wisconsin Law