WPC)@ g43 `CbתqO|î >eN6 m7d0߇669!=KKْR˶ r/MbVVZB;r4!iǼS` ǓbmBXD%*k˭CSs=AveUԹYnEdL~ U/4x"7C-:L%D|=Q .bQ$P W 2]k&ȆJO|VHdw  PAƑ)cQ文"ZvWgv)"=bU e%ʓ/*#U[_~b#\ % 0# 0 UDN 0 0 z 4 0 0 0 0N 0Ny 0{ 0QE- 0/ 0 0 0 0 0N 0 0 0 0~ 0V 0+ 0 0! 0" 0a# 0'$ 0<$U%>&% 0d% 0 &&^ (b(w(4((( m( 0 D(7 /)f4-5DG67FI9::::::::::::::::::::::: 0 &;&;&;&; B<< 0.< D3< D-= 0K2=2= AS}== 0> 0D:? A~?HP LaserJet 4Si,,,,,,02G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular2D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2   C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt2>+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  ӁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 522+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2  <:Default Para\  `&Times New Roman0;;.footer   !XXX   !XXX({2 A$ !.8,dd8       R$      2    _Thecomplaintalsoallegesdeprivationofpropertywithoutdueprocessoflawandundercoloroflawin  violationoftheFifthandFourteenthAmendmentstotheUnitedStatesConstitutionandArticleI,Section8ofthe x TennesseeConstitution.Theseaspectsofthecomplaintarenotatissueontheinstantappeal.K) - -9?(GRA~1Ф3|xU(#$  0   - R$      7    _TheCourtapparentlymeanttorefertoT.C.A.))X;X)#X;XX)X;##XX;#Ԁ826105or106.Thosestatutesprovideasfollows:    T.C.A.))X;X)#X;XX)X;##XX;#Ԁ826105 h     8  8`   (a)Thecountylegislativebodyorgoverningbodyofeachcountyhastheauthority  p topassaresolutionfixingtheamountofjailersfeeswhichmaybeappliedto 8 _misdemeanant_Ԁprisoners.Theratefixedshallapplytosuchprisonersconfinedin   thecountyjailorcountyworkhouseorworkhouses,butnotmeetingtheconditions x  requiredforastatesubsidyundertitle41,chapter8.@ ` x` x 8  8`   (b)Inlieuofthereimbursementforjailersfeesallowedin))X;X)#X;XX)X;##XX;#Ԁ826106,thestate  X  shallprovideasubsidypursuanttotitle41,chapter8. H ` x` x 8  8`   (c)Referencesinothersectionstojailersfeesforstateprisonersspecifiedinthis    sectionshallbedeemedtobereferencestothesubsidiesspecifiedin))X;X)#X;XX)X;##XX;#Ԁ418   106(d).x ` x` x F  T.C.A.)#)Ԯ#)Ԁ826106#)# X      8  8`   Upontheadoptionbythecountylegislativebodyofaresolutionfixingjailersfees,   itismadethedutyofthecountyclerktopromptlytransmittothejudicialcost ` accountantacertifiedcopyoftheresolution.Thejudicialcostaccountantshall (x allowjailersfeesforthatparticularcountyforstateprisonersattheamountfixed @ bytheresolutiononthesametermsasthecountyaccordingtotheprovisionsof))X;X)#X;XX)X; ##XX; #  826105. R$      1    _Theplaintiffdoesnotchallengetheassessmentofcourtcosts.  R$      6    _Thetwostatutesatissuein KnoxCounty aresubstantiallythesametodayastheywerewhenthatcasewas  decided. : R$      3    _See1982Tenn.Pub.Actsch.891.Whilethestatutoryschemehasbeenmodifiedseveraltimessincethen,  noneoftheamendmentsimpactourdecisioninthiscase.  R$      4    _UndertheauthorityofT.C.A.))X;X)#X;XX)X;##XX;#Ԁ826105(1993),theKnoxCountyCommissionhasauthorizedtheSheriff  ofKnoxCountytochargeadailyjailfeeof$38.50. < R$      5    _Theplaintiffconcedesthat_DUI_Ԁdefendantscanbeassessedjailfeestotheextentthatthetotaljailfeesexceed  theamountofthefine. R$      8    _Seefootnote7.(|G2$ !.8,dd8         0   d(|3$ !.8,dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8,dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8,dd8     _  ,8;XXdd8  @ ,INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#, #Ԉ ,   May2000Session X X;X, #,XX;#_JULI_ԀBROWN,etal.v.KNOXCOUNTY,etal.X;X,   ` @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforKnoxCounty  h @@No.1425692WilliamH.Inman,SeniorJudge,ByDesignation  X FILEDAUGUST25,_2000_  8  @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.E199901185_COA_ԄR3CV '  AV) ` dE<` A      #,XX;#X;X,)X;XXX;Thisisanactionseekingadeclaratoryjudgment,injunctiverelief,monetarydamages,andclass  actioncertification.Theplaintiff,whohadearlierbeenconvictedofdrivingundertheinfluenceof  anintoxicant( _DUI_),contendsthatthereisnostatutoryauthorityforimposingjailfeeson  individualsfoundguiltyofviolatingthe_DUI_Ԁstatute,T.C.A.5510403,unlessthejailfeesexceed  theamountofthefineimposedbythesentencingcourtandthenonlytotheextentoftheexcess. v Werejecttheplaintiffsinterpretationofthepertinentprovision,T.C.A.#X;XX)X;>#)X;XXX;#),X)X;#)X;X),Ԁ5510403(a)(2),andagree f withthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmenttothedefendants.#X;XX)X;p##,XX;#X;X, V  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt 6 Affirmed;CaseRemanded  &v   #,X; #X;X.,CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM.Goddard, V P.J.,andHerschelP.Franks,J.,joined. F A.JamesAndrewsandSteven_Oberman_,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellant_Juli_ԀBrown. & RichardT._Beeler_,KnoxCountyLawDirector;JohnE._Owings_,ChiefDeputyLawDirector;and !  RobertR.Davies,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappelleesKnoxCountyandLillianBean. "! c  OPINION #,XX; # $# X;X,I.#,XX; # &!%     X;X,Inthissuit,theplaintiffseeksclassactioncertificationonbehalfofallindividualswhohave (#' beenconvictedoftheoffenseof_DUI_ԀinKnoxCountyandwhohavebeen assessedand/orpaid )$(  bothafineandjailfees and[_h]ave_Ԁnothadtheirjailfeesreducedbythefine,uptoandincluding v*%) thetotalamountofthefine,whereapplicable.6 4#  1      ׀Theplaintiffscomplaintalleges,interalia,,X 4#  2      ׀that   KnoxCountyandtheformerKnoxCountyCircuitCourtClerk,LillianBeanwhoissued  individuallyandinherformerofficialcapacityhaveassessedandcollectedjailfeesinviolation  ofT.C.A.)X;XXX;#X;XX)X;#Ԁ5510403(a)(2).Thetrialcourtgrantedthedefendantssummaryjudgment.Indoing  so,itrelieduponanunpublishedopinionofthisCourt, KnoxCountyv.CityofKnoxville ,C/ANo. p 759,1988WL116456(Tenn.Ct.App.W.S.,filedinKnoxvilleonNovember2,1988).Inthatcase, `  weconcludedthat a_DUI_Ԁoffendermustpayboththejailersfeeandthefinefordrunkdrivingin P  itsentirety. Id .at*2. @    Theplaintiffappeals,arguingthatthetrialcourtandthisCourtinthe KnoxCounty case  p  erredwhenweinterpreted_T.C.A._Ԁ)X;XXX;#X;XX)X;U#Ԁ5510403(a)(2).Shepresentsoneissueforourconsideration: `  8  8`   WhetherthechancerycourterroneouslyinterpretedT.C.A.)X;XXX;#X;XX)X;K#Ԁ5510 @  403(a)(2)whenitdisagreedwithaTennesseeAttorneyGenerals 0  opinionholdingthatthisstatuterequiresclerksofcourttoreducejail   feesimposedonpersonsconvictedofviolatingTennessees_DUI_  statutebytheamountofanyfineimposed.` x` x Sincethematerialfactsinthiscaseareundisputed,ourreviewfocusesontheinterpretationand  applicationofvariousstatutes.Thus,wearepresentedwithapurequestionoflaw.Ourreviewis  denovoontherecordoftheproceedingsbelow,butthereisnopresumptionofcorrectnessastothe p trialcourtsruling. _Billington_Ԁv.Crowder ,553S.W.2d590,595(Tenn.Ct.App.1977); _Myint_Ԁv. ` AllstateIns.Co. ,970S.W.2d920,924(Tenn.1998)( Constructionofastatuteisaquestionoflaw P whichwereviewdenovo,withnopresumptionofcorrectness.) @   II.  p ;  T.C.A.)X;XXX;#X;XX)X;#Ԁ5510403(a)(2)(1998)isapartofthepresentcomprehensive_DUI_Ԁstatutoryscheme P whichwasfirstenactedbytheGeneralAssemblyin1982.8x 4#  3      ׀Itprovidesasfollows: @ 8  8`   Aportionofanyfineimposeduponapersonforaviolationofthis   section,uptothemaximumfineactuallyimposed,shallbereturned ! tothesheriffofacountyjailortothechiefadministrativeofficerof "  acityjailforthepurposeofreimbursingsuchsherifforofficerforthe #! costofincarceratingsuchpersonforeachnightsuchpersonis  actuallyincustodyforaviolationofthissection.Such  reimbursementshallbeinthesameamountasisprovidedby826  105,andshallnotinanyeventbelessthantheactualcostof  maintainingsuchpersonandshallbereimbursedinthemanner p providedby826106.` ` x` x TheplaintiffcontendsthatthispartoftheCodemeansthatalljailfees9 4#  4      ׀for_DUI_Ԁdefendants,upto @  theamountofthefine,mustbepaidbytheclerkoutofthefineandnotseparatelyassessedagainst 0  a_DUI_Ԁdefendant.:H 4#  5      ׀Shearguesthat thereisnolawfulauthorityallowingaclerkofcourttoimpose  p  aseparatejailfeefor_DUI_Ԁconvictionsunlessthefeeexceedstheamountofthefineimposed. `    TheplaintiffreliesuponanopinionoftheStateAttorneyGeneralinterpretingT.C.A.)X;XXX;#X;XX)X;##Ԁ55 @  10403(a)(2).TheAttorneyGeneralrespondedtothefollowingquestion mustthejailfeebepaid 0  bytheclerkfromthefinewhichisimposedbythecourtormayitbechargedseparatelyaspartof   thecostoftheaction?See Op._Atty_ԀGen .No.U96071(1996).TheAttorneyGeneralopinedthat  8  8`   [_s]ince_Ԁthisstatutestatesthatthereimbursementtothesheriffor  officermustcomefromaportionofanyfineimposed,itisclear  thatthelegislaturedidnotintendthataseparatejailfeebecharged.  Consequently,baseduponthenaturalandordinarylanguageofthe p statute,thejailfeemustbepaidbytheclerkfromthefineimposedby ` theclerk.P` x` x  Id .at2. 0   III. ` '(  In1988,priortotheAttorneyGeneralsopinion,thisCourtdecidedthecaseof KnoxCounty @ v.CityofKnoxville ,supra.Theopinioninthatcasefocusesontheinterplayoftwostatutes:(1)the 0 _DUI_Ԁstatuteatissueintheinstantcase,T.C.A.5510403(a)(2)(Supp.1988);and(2)thegeneral   jailersstatute,T.C.A.826105(Supp.1987).7 4#  6      ׀ Id .at*1.TheactionwasbroughtbyKnox ! County,seekingreimbursementofjailfeespursuanttoT.C.A.5510403(a)(2)evenincases "  whereithadcollectedthosefeesfromtheoffenderspursuanttothegeneraljailersstatute. Knox #! County at*1*2.Inresolvingthatappeal,wespecificallyaddressedthequestionof [_w]hether_Ԁ_DUI_  offendersmustpaythejailersfeepursuanttoT.C.A.826104_5 4#  7      _Ԁinadditiontothefinefor_DUI_  pursuanttoT.C.A.5510403. Id .at*2.Inholdingthat_DUI_Ԁoffendersmustpayboththejail  feesandthefine,westatedthefollowing:  8  8`    Thequestionpresentedbythepartiesonappealiswhether `  T.C.A.)X;XXX;#X;XX)X;/#Ԁ5510403(a)(2)requiresthattheCountySheriffbepaid,out P  offinescollectedfrompersonsconvictedof_DUI_,aperdiem @  incarcerationcost(i.e.,ajailersfee)irrespectiveofwhetherornot 0  thatsamecostisrecoveredorcollectedfromanothersource  p  authorizedbyT.C.A.)X;XXX;#X;XX)X;0#Ԁ826105asamendedbyChapter896,Section `  7,ofthe1984PublicActsofTennessee.Inaddressingthisquestion, P  twoissuesmustberesolved[,thefirstofwhichisdirectlypertinent @  totheinstantcase]:0 ` x` x 8  8`    ` x` x 8  8`    (1)Whether_DUI_Ԁoffendersmustpaythejailersfeepursuant  toT.C.A.)X;XXX;#X;XX)X;63#Ԁ826104;P 4#  8      ׀inadditiontothefinefordrunkdriving  pursuanttoT.C.A.)X;XXX;#X;XX)X;*4#Ԁ5510403;` x` x 8  8`   ` x` x   8 @ 8@`   ***    8  8`    ` x` x 8  8`   ...Astothefirstissue,a_DUI_Ԁoffendermustpayboththejailersfee  andthefinefordrunkdrivinginitsentirety.Thereareseveral  reasonswhythismustbetheresult.Asageneralrule,statutesonthe p samesubjectmustbereadinparimateria.Thecourtisrequiredto `  interpretsuchstatutesinamannerwhichavoidsconflictbetween P  themandshouldstrivetointerpretthestatutes soastoprovidea @  harmoniousoperationofthelaws.Thetwostatutesatissuedonot 0  conflictwhenthe_DUI_Ԁstatuterequiringreimbursementisreadasan  p  alternativemeansforcountiestorecoverthecostsofincarceration. `  Thisallowsforaharmoniousoperationofstatutes.P ` x` x 8  8`    Inaddition,itmustbepresumedthattheLegislaturewas 0  awareofthejailersfee,T.C.A.826104whenitpassedthe_DUI_   statute.Thisisespeciallytruewhen,aswiththestatutesatissue,the  newstatutespecificallyreferstothepriorstatute.TheLegislature  specificallynotedtheexistenceofthejailersfeestatuteinthe_DUI_  statute.The_DUI_Ԁstatutedoesnotpurporttoexempt_DUI_Ԁoffenders  fromthepaymentofjailersfees,ratheritreferstothegeneraljailers  statuteforthemethodofdeterminingtheamountofreimbursement. p Thus,itisclearthatthelegislativeintentwasthat_DUI_Ԁoffenderspay ` boththejailersfeeandthefinefor_DUI_.P` x` x 8  8`    Finally,afundamentalpurposeofstatutoryconstruction is 0 toascertainand,ifpossible,giveeffecttotheintentionorpurposeof  p thelegislature.Aninterpretationwhichfrustratesthatpurposeis ` impermissible.T.C.A.5510401etseq.setsforthacomprehensive P plandealingwithdrunkdriving.Clearly,thepurposeofthislawis @ topunishintoxicateddriversanddetersuchconductinthefuture. 0 Themaingoalofthestatuteistopenalizeintoxicateddrivers,notto   providereimbursementofincarcerationcosts.Allowing_DUI_ ! offenderstoavoidthejailersfeeschargedtoother_misdemeanants_ "  wouldcertainlydetractfromthepenalnatureofthestatuteand #! frustratethepurposeofthelegislativescheme.Thus,a_DUI_Ԁoffender $" mustpayboththejailersfeeandthe_DUI_Ԁfine.% #` x` x  Id .at*2*3.(Citationsomitted).Ascanbeseen,weconcludedin KnoxCounty that_DUI_Ԁoffenders `'"% mustpaybothjailfeespursuanttoT.C.A.)X;XXX;#X;XX)X;|C#826105and106and_DUI_ԀfinespursuanttoT.C.A. P(#& 5510403. @)$'   Indismissingtheinstantcomplaint,thetrialcourtspecificallyrelieduponourdecisionin  +p&)  KnoxCounty ,statingthat [_i]f_ԀtheplaintiffsinterpretationofT.C.A.5510403(a)(2)iscorrect, ,`'* _DUI_Ԁdefendantsandtheyonlyarethebeneficiariesofasubstantialbenefit:themandatedfine  includesthenightlycostoftheirincarceration,uptotheamountofthefine.Thetrialcourt  recognizedthatno_DUI_Ԁoffenderswereinvolvedinthe KnoxCounty case,butfeltconstrainedto  followtheholdingofthatcase.    ItisimportanttorecognizethatT.C.A.)X;XXX;#X;XX)X;G#Ԁ5510403(a)(2)doesnotexpresslystatethata_DUI_ `  defendantcannotbeassessedwithjailfees.Theplaintiffseizesuponsomeofthelanguageofthat P  statutetosupportherargumentwithrespecttojailfees;however,intheabsenceofanexpress @  declarationofnonliability,shenecessarilymustarguethatthislanguageimpliedlyabsolvesa_DUI_ 0  defendantofalljailfeesuptothefullamountofthefine.Theproblemwiththisapproachisthat  p  itfocusesonlyonaportionoftherelevantstatutory_DUI_Ԁschemeand,inaddition,completely `  ignoresthestatutespertainingtothejailersfees,statutesthatareexpresslyreferredtoinT.C.A.)X;XXX;#X;XX)X;XK# P  5510403(a)(2).Thisapproachisinconsistentwithrecognizedstandardsofstatutoryconstruction. @  See Mandelav.Campbell ,978S.W.2d531,534(Tenn.1998); WestinghouseElec.Corp.v.King , 0  678S.W.2d19,23(Tenn.1984).     The1996AttorneyGeneralsopiniondoesnotrefertothe KnoxCounty case,whichwas  decidedin1988.WhileopinionsoftheAttorneyGeneralrenderedpursuanttoT.C.A.)X;XXX;#X;XX)X;M#Ԁ86109(b)  (1993)arefrequentlypersuasiveonagivensubject,wearenotinclinedtofollowhisopinion  regardingtheeffectofT.C.A.)X;XXX;#X;XX)X;N#Ԁ5510403(a)(2)onthefactsofthiscase,especiallyinviewofhis  failuretoaddresstheimpactof KnoxCounty . p   Inherreplybrief,theplaintiffarguesthatsincejailfeesareanelementofthecostsofa P prosecution,seeT.C.A.)X;XXX;#X;XX)X;IP#Ԁ4025133,andsincethefirstmoniespaidbyadefendanttoaclerkmust @ beappliedtocosts,seeT.C.A.)X;XXX;#X;XX)X;Q#Ԁ4025105(a),thetrialcourtsinterpretationofT.C.A.)X;XXX;#X;XX)X;Q#Ԁ5510 0 403(a)(2)asanalternativesourceforpaymentofjailfeesdoesnotmakesenseintheoverallcontext  p ofthelanguageofthestatute.Theplaintiffcontendsthatifthetrialcourtiscorrectthatthestatute ` providesanalternativesourceforpaymentofthejailfees,suchaninterpretationpresentsananomaly P Єthefine,beingpaidonlyafterthejailfeeshavebeenpaidinfull,isanalternativesourceof @ paymentforthatwhichhasalreadynecessarilybeenpaid.Inotherwords,theclerkdoesnotcome 0 intopossessionofthefineuntilallcosts,includingjailfees,havebeenpaidinfull.Inviewofthis,   sotheplaintiffquestions,howcanthefinebeanalternativesourceofpaymentofthejailfees? !   Whiletheplaintiffsargumentisbasedonalogicalfoundation,weagainnotethatitfocuses #! onlyonsomeofthelanguageofT.C.A.)X;XXX;#X;XX)X;V#Ԁ5510403(a)(2)totheexclusionofotherpertinent $" statutes.Werejectthispiecemealapproachtostatutoryconstruction.Intheabsenceofanexpress % # declarationthat_DUI_Ԁdefendantsarenotobligatedtopayjailfees,wecannotaccepttheplaintiffs p&!$ argument. `'"%   Wefindthatthetrialcourtwascorrectinrelyingupontherationaleof KnoxCounty , @)$' regardlessofthefactthatno_DUI_ԀoffenderswerebeforetheCourtinthatcase.Theplaintiffin Knox 0*%( County wasattemptingtocollectjailfeestwice,onceunderthejailersfeestatuteandonceunder  +p&) thesame_DUI_Ԁstatutethatisatissueintheinstantcase.Therefore,aresolutionofthematterbythe ,`'*  KnoxCounty Courtdemandedananalysisoftheinteractionofthetwostatutes,whichinturn  requiredaninterpretationofeachstatute.Weconcludedin KnoxCounty that_DUI_Ԁoffendersmust  payboththejailfeespursuanttoT.C.A.)X;XXX;#X;XX)X;a[#Ԁ826105and106inadditiontothefinefordrunk  drivingpursuanttoT.C.A.5510403.Therefore,theabovequotedportionof KnoxCounty was  essentialtotheholdingofthecaseand,hence,notdicta.Though KnoxCounty isanunpublished p opinion,wemayconsidersuchopinionsaspersuasiveauthority.See AllstateIns.Co.v.Watts ,811 `  S.W.2d883,886n.2(Tenn.1991)(citinganunpublishedcasedespite thegeneralrulethat P  unpublishedopinionsshouldnotbecitedinpublishedopinions.).Weconsider KnoxCounty to @  bewellreasoned,andwefollowthatprecedentinthiscase. 0    Theplaintiffsargument,inessence,isthatthe_DUI_Ԁstatuteimpliedlyrepealedthegeneral `  jailersstatuteasitrelatesto_DUI_Ԁoffendersbycarvingoutanexceptionforsuch_misdemeanants_, P  exemptingthemfromhavingtopayjailfeesunlessthefineisinsufficienttocoverthosefees.We @  donotagree.Arepealbyimplicationisdisfavored, andwillberecognizedonlywhennofairand 0  reasonableconstructionwillpermitthestatutestostandtogether. _Cronin_Ԁv.Howe ,906S.W.2d   910,912(Tenn.1995).Wefoundin KnoxCounty thatT.C.A.5510403(a)(2)andT.C.A.826  105canbeconstruedharmoniouslyandwereaffirmthatholdingtoday.Accordingly,wefindand  holdthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrinitsconstructionofT.C.A.5510403(a)(2).    IV.  c  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Thecaseisremandedforcollectionofcosts, ` assessedbelow,pursuanttoapplicablelaw.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellant. P    `     h     ___________________________________ P    `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE