Case Title: State Ex Rel. Larson v. Farley

Citation: 106 Ariz. 119, 471 P.2d 731

Docket Number: 

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1970-07-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
106 Ariz. 119 (1970) 471 P.2d 731 STATE of Arizona ex rel. E. Leigh LARSON, County Attorney for Santa Cruz County, Petitioner, v. Gordon FARLEY, Judge of the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, Arizona; Lorin Gail SHELLEY, Real Party in Interest, Respondents. No. 10077. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. July 10, 1970. Rehearing Denied September 15, 1970. *120 Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by E. Dennis Siler, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner. Jestila & Holroyd, by Donald D. Holroyd, Phoenix, for respondents. McFARLAND, Justice. This case is before us on a petition for special action, in which the petitioner alleges that Respondent Lorin Gail Shelley hereinafter referred to as Shelley the Real Party in Interest, was on November 26, 1969, judged guilty by the Justice of the Peace of Precinct No. 1, Santa Cruz County, of the offense of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of A.R.S. § 28-692, and was fined $220. This Court accepted jurisdiction in certiorari. On May 22, 1970, Shelley filed a motion in the justice court to vacate the judgment on the grounds that the recent enactment § 36-142, A.R.S., enlarged the possible fine to more than $300. This would exceed the jurisdiction of the justice court under § 22-301, A.R.S., as amended, which reads in part: Section 36-142, A.R.S., as amended, provides for an additional ten per cent of the amount of a fine imposed in cases in violation of § 28-692.01 prohibiting the driving of an automobile while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, or drugs, and § 13-379 relating to drunk and disorderly conduct. Shelley appealed to the Superior Court from the order denying his motion to vacate the judgment, and the Superior Court entered an order as follows: The question involved is whether § 36-142 increases the maximum penalty for driving a car while under the influence of intoxicating liquor to more than three hundred dollars, thereby exceeding the jurisdiction *121 of the justice court. § 36-142 reads as follows: In Frazier v. Terrill, 65 Ariz. 131, 175 P.2d 438, the question of the jurisdiction of the justice court was involved under § 57-126, A.C.A., 1939, as amended by Chapter 52, Laws of 1945, which provided that: The maximum fine was provided as $300, and the penalty was in addition thereto. In determining that the justice court had jurisdiction, this Court held the additional sum was a penalty collected under civil procedure and no part of the fine. We cannot agree with the "penalty" theory advanced by the state in its memorandum in the instant case: The statute specifically provides under "A" that "an additional ten per cent of the amount of the fine imposed shall be imposed by the court as a part of the fine," and under "B" that "the ten per cent added part of each such fine shall be * * *." In both "A" and "B" the additional ten per cent of the amount is specifically made a part of the fine, while in Frazier v. Terrill, supra, it was held to be a penalty. We agree with the attorney general that the act is ambiguous, but the ambiguity lies in whether the legislature intended for the ten per cent to increase the fine beyond the $300. Sec. 28-692.01 provides for punishment on a first conviction for driving a car while under the influence of alcoholic liquor by "not less than ten days, nor more than six months, by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than three hundred dollars, or both." In a second or subsequent offense, the maximum fine is also $300. The question then is whether § 28-692.01 providing for a maximum of a $300 fine was amended by implication in the enactment of § 36-142. The same principle *122 would be applicable to a violation of § 13-379. Sec. 36-142 made no reference to the minimum or maximum of the fine that could be imposed. This involves a very basic rule of statutory construction. The general rule is that the court may look to prior and contemporaneous statutes in construing the meaning of a statute which is uncertain and on its face susceptible to more than one interpretation. If reasonably practical, a statute should be explained in conjunction with other statutes to the end that they may be harmonious and consistent. If the statutes relate to the same subject or have the same general purpose that is, statutes which are in pari materia they should be read in connection with, or should be construed together with other related statutes, as though they constituted one law. As they must be construed as one system governed by one spirit and policy, the legislative intent therefor must be ascertained not alone from the literal meaning of the wording of the statutes but also from the view of the whole system of related statutes. This rule of construction applies even where the statutes were enacted at different times, and contain no reference one to the other, and it is immaterial that they are found in different chapters of the revised statutes. In construing the statute, endeavors should be made to trace the history and legislation on the subject in order to ascertain the consistent purpose of the legislation. In Estate of Stark, 52 Ariz. 416, 82 P.2d 894, this Court has clearly set forth this rule: In Peterson v. Flood, 84 Ariz. 256, 326 P.2d 845, in holding that the justice court had authority to suspend sentence, we said: In the later case of Desert Waters, Inc. v. Superior Court, 91 Ariz. 163, 370 P.2d 652, we re-affirmed this rule when we said: In the case of City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. & P. Dist., 92 Ariz. 91, 373 P.2d 722, we said: See also United States v. Stewart, 311 U.S. 60, 61 S. Ct. 102, 85 L. Ed. 40; Ard v. State, 102 Ariz. 221, 427 P.2d 913; Frazier v. Terrill, supra; Ariz. Corp. Comm. v. Gem State Mut. Life Assn., 72 Ariz. 403, 236 P.2d 730; Isley v. School Dist. No. 2 Maricopa Co., 81 Ariz. 280, 305 P.2d 432; State v. McGriff, 7 Ariz. App. 498, 441 P.2d 264; cases cited in 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 366, at page 803 et seq. The 1927 act provided for a fine of not less than $200 nor more than $500, Laws 1927, Chap. 6. This section was carried forward in the Revised Statutes of 1928, Sec. 1688. In 1935, the legislature amended the punishment provisions by making imprisonment in jail the sole punishment. Laws of 1935, Chap. 33. In the Laws of 1950, 1st Session, Chap. 3, which were carried in Ariz.Rev. Statutes § 28-692 (1956), the punishment was changed to a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $300 on the first conviction, and on a second conviction not more than $1,000. This was amended in 1959 by decreasing the maximum fine from $1,000 to $300 upon a second conviction. In contrast, the provisions of the Revised Statutes of 1913, Sec. 1308, limiting the jurisdiction of the justice courts to fines not exceeding $300, have remained substantially the same. Section 22-301, A.R.S., Revised (1956). It is therefore evident that the legislature found that the public interest was better served by reducing the maximum fine so as to give the justice courts jurisdiction of such offenses. This reduced the congestion in the superior courts, and provided an expeditious method of handling these cases. This past history makes it clear that had the legislature intended to increase the maximum fine provided for in § 28-692, it would have done so directly, as was done in the reductions of the fines in the past. Section 36-141 grants authority to contract and pay for alcohol and drug-abuse services, and § 36-142 relates only to the means of financing the program. No reference is made to the maximum fine. There is nothing in the act to indicate in any way that the legislature gave any consideration to raising the maximum penalty. It is therefore evident that the legislature did not have any intention to change the maximum fine or thereby deprive the justice court of jurisdiction, but only intended to provide a means of raising money to carry out the program. This is made apparent by subsection B of § 36-142, where the legislature refers to this as "a continuing appropriation." This is the only reasonable construction whereby all the statutes can be harmonized, and is in accord with the rule set forth in Desert Waters, Inv. v. Superior Court, supra, that the general statute remains applicable to all matters not dealt with in the specific statute. It is also consistent with the rule set forth in Frazier v. Terrill, supra: We accordingly hold the maximum fine under each of the statutes, including the additional ten per cent of the fine, may not exceed $300. The order of the Superior Court is vacated. LOCKWOOD, C.J., STRUCKMEYER, V.C.J., and UDALL and HAYS, JJ., concur.