The court's construction of a statute will stand unless the legislature specifically changes the particular holding. We conclude that the legislature did not change our holding in Schaller when it enacted the 1983 amendments to the probation statute. We note that in 1996, the legislature amended the escape statute. Wis. Act 154. While the 1996 amendment is not applicable to Rosenburg because his failure to return to jail occurred in 1994, the language and history of the new escape statute indicate that the legislature itself believed that the 1983 amendments to the probation statute did not affect the escape statute.
Current law provides penalties for persons who escape from custody.
The prohibitions apply to a person on probation only when the person is in actual custody, such as in custody in a jail. This bill makes a probationer subject to the escape law at all times when he or she is subject to an order of confinement as a condition of probation. We are careful to note that the legislative history of the 1996 amendments is not dispositive of the legislature's intent in 1983. We conclude that the 1983 amendments to the probation statute did not modify Schaller . Therefore, we hold that the escape statute in effect at the time Rosenburg failed to return to jail did not apply to a probationer who failed to return to jail while released from the sheriff's actual custody.