50 Ohio St. 2d 341 | Ohio | 1977
Case No. 76-1232 seeks a writ of prohibition to stop respondent from committing Brown to the Treatment Center in lieu of imprisonment. The respondent has already done so and Brown has spent his time at that institution. Case no. 76-1232 is, therefore, moot, since prohibition will not lie to theoretically interdict an action ¡■which has already transpired.
Case No. 76-1233, relator’s mandamus action, provides an adequate vehicle for review of the legal question posed by the parties. The issue involved is the alleged disparity between R. C. 4511.99(A) and 2935.33.
R. C. 4511.99(A) provides that:'
“Whoever violates Section 4511.19 [driving while intoxicated] of the Revised Code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, in addition to the license suspension or revocation provided in Section 4507.16 of the Revised Code. At least three days’ imprisonment is mandatory under this division.” (Emphasis added.)
“If it appears to a judge at time of sentencing for a
R. C. 2935.33(B) provides that:
• The relator does not attempt to reconcile these statutory enactments sanctioning disparate forms of societal redress for proscribed behavior.
Besides the “clear language” of R. C. 4511.99(A), relator relies upon this court’s decisions in State, ex rel. Owens, v. McClure (1976), 48 Ohio St. 2d 1, and State, ex rel. Moraites, v. Gorman (1975), 42 Ohio St. 175. There is ample language in both of these cases to support the broad proposition that a person convicted of a violation of R. C. 4511.19 must be imprisoned for three days, i. e., “imprisoned” as defined in R. C. 1.05.
However, in neither Gorman nor McClure, did this
R. C. 2935.33 was enacted by the General Assembly during the same session in which the mandatory three-days imprisonment provision was added to R. C. 4511.99, and R. C. 2935.33 was further amended in 1975 and 1976. If the General Assembly had deemed there to be a conflict or incongruity between these two statutory provisions, that body had ample time to amend, repeal, or otherwise clarify any existing incongruity. It did not do so.
It is axiomatic that consistency in statutes is important and that statutes should, if possible, be construed so as to reconcile their provisions . It is our opinion that giving a judge the option to imprison an offender for three days under 4511.99(A) or commit him for treatment under R. C. 2935.33(B) most nearly achieves this end.
For the foregoing reasons, relator’s writs are denied.
Writs denied.
The parties concede that Brown’s detention in the Treatment Center is not “imprisonment.” However, in order to put the statutory definition of “imprisonment” in context and avoid a hyperteehnical reliance upon it, this court notes that the statute reads: “As used in the Bevised Code, unless the context otherwise requires, ‘imprisoned’ means * * (Emphasis added.) Thus, there is leeway for interpretation of “imprisonment” as used in B. C. 4911.99(A) when read in pari materia with E. C. 2935.33.
This court has commented upon the possibility of various interpretations of “imprisonment” in fn. 1 in State, ex rel. Moraites, v. Gorman (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 175, at page 177.