County of Benton v. County of Stearns

503 N.W.2d 519, 1993 WL 265403
CourtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota
DecidedJuly 21, 1993
DocketC4-92-2436, C4-93-79
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 503 N.W.2d 519 (County of Benton v. County of Stearns) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
County of Benton v. County of Stearns, 503 N.W.2d 519, 1993 WL 265403 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

OPINION

HOLTAN, Judge. *

Benton and Sherburne Counties commenced separate actions against respondent Stearns County, asserting Stearns County was responsible for the costs of incarceration of misdemeanants and gross misdemeanants sentenced in Stearns County to the Benton and Sherburne County jails for offenses committed in the Benton and Sherburne County sections of the cities of St. Cloud and Sartell. In both actions, the parties stipulated to the relevant facts and submitted the issue to the trial courts. In both actions, the trial courts found Stearns County was not responsible for the costs of incarceration. Benton and Sher-burne Counties have filed separate appeals, which have been consolidated.

FACTS

St. Cloud is situated in the counties of Stearns, Benton and Sherburne. The St. *521 Cloud City Hall is in Stearns County. Sar-tell is located in Benton and Stearns Counties. The Sartell City Hall is also located in Stearns County. 1

Pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 487.21, subd. 4 (1990), statutory misdemeanors and certain gross misdemeanors committed in the Benton and Sherburne County sections of St. Cloud are prosecuted in Stearns County by the St. Cloud city attorney. Similarly, statutory misdemeanors and certain gross misdemeanors committed in the Benton County section of Sartell are prosecuted by the Sartell city attorney in Stearns County.

Benton, Sherburne and Stearns County each maintain their own county jails. No property taxes from the Sherburne or Benton County sections of St. Cloud and Sartell are used for the construction, maintenance or operating costs of the Stearns County jail. Any fines collected from misdemean-ants and gross misdemeanants for offenses committed in Benton and Sherburne Counties and prosecuted in Stearns County are distributed pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 487-33, subd. 5 (1990). None of the fine money goes to Benton or Sherburne County.

The sheriffs of Benton and Sherburne Counties submitted invoices to the Stearns County sheriff for payment of the cost of boarding prisoners who were convicted and sentenced in Stearns County for misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor offenses committed in the Benton and Sherburne County sections of St. Cloud and Sartell. Benton and Sherburne Counties have taken the position that Stearns County is responsible for the cost of incarceration of prisoners in their jails sentenced in Stearns County for offenses committed in Benton and Sherburne Counties. Stearns County has taken the position that Benton and Sher-burne Counties are responsible for the cost of incarceration of prisoners who committed offenses in Benton and Sherburne County, regardless of the fact that they were tried, convicted and sentenced in Stearns County.

Based on these stipulated facts, the trial courts held in favor of Stearns County. The separate appeals of Benton and Sher-burne County have been consolidated by this court.

ISSUE

Did the trial court err in holding Stearns County is not responsible for the payment of the costs of incarceration of prisoners convicted in Stearns County and sentenced by the Stearns County court to the Benton and Sherburne County jails?

ANALYSIS

I. Standard of Review

The trial court’s decision was based on statutory interpretation, a question of law which this court reviews de novo on appeal. Hibbing Educ. Ass’n v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 369 N.W.2d 527, 529 (Minn.1985).

II. Liability for Costs

A person accused of committing a crime in Minnesota has the right to a trial in the county or district in which the crime was committed, “which county or district shall have been previously ascertained by law.” Minn. Const. art. I, § 6.

When a person is sentenced to serve time in a county jail, the county where the offense was committed is responsible for the costs of incarceration. Minn.Stat. § 641.13 (1990) provides:

When any prisoner is ordered confined in any county other than that in which the offense was committed, the other county shall keep the prisoner at the expense of the county sending the prisoner.

Id. (emphasis added). In addition, Minn. Stat. § 631.46 (1990) provides:

If a sentence requires imprisonment at a local correctional facility and there is no suitable facility in the county in which the offense was committed, the court *522 may order the sentence to be executed in any other county where there is a suitable facility. The comity in which the offense was committed shall pay the expense of supporting the inmate.

(Emphasis added.) Section 631.46 is not applicable to the present case, as Sher-burne, Benton and Stearns County all have suitable facilities (county jails).

Minn.Stat. ch. 487 addresses the jurisdiction and authority of county courts. Minn. Stat. § 487.18(a) (1990) provides:

The county court has jurisdiction to hear, try and determine any charge of violation of a criminal law of this state constituting a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor committed within the county court district and of any ordinance, charter provision, rule or regulation of any subdivision of government in the county court district.

(Emphasis added.)

For cities such as St. Cloud and Sartell that are in more than one county, the legislature has stated:

If a municipality is located in more than one county court district, or in more than one county within a county court district, the county in which the city hall of the municipality is located determines the county or county court district in which the municipality shall be deemed located for the purposes of sections 487.01 to 487.38 provided, however, that the municipality by ordinance enacted may designate, for those purposes, some other county or district in which a part of the municipality is located.

Minn.Stat. § 487.21, subd. 4 (1990) (emphasis added). 2

Does the statement in section 487.-21, subdivision 4 that a municipality “shall be deemed located” in the county in which the city hall is located require that offenses committed anywhere in Sartell or St. Cloud be deemed to have been committed in Stearns County? We do not think so.

The legislature has authority to enact special venue statutes to deal with special venue problems. State v. Krejci, 458 N.W.2d 407, 411 (Minn.1990); State v. Sanderson, 469 N.W.2d 476, 478 (Minn. App.1991). A special venue statute may specifically address a single county or municipality. See, e.g., Minn.Stat.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Wolf
592 N.W.2d 866 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
503 N.W.2d 519, 1993 WL 265403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/county-of-benton-v-county-of-stearns-minnctapp-1993.