Title: STATE v WHITESHIELD SORENSEN

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 14963 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1979 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellant, RUDY WHITESHIELD and PAUL SCOTT SORENSEN, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Third Judicial District, Honorable John B. McClernan, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Ted Mizner, County Attorney, Deer Lodge, Montana For Respondents: Byron W . Boggs, Anaconda, Montana - - -- Submitted on briefs: Dec. 28, 1979 Decided : M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal by t h e S t a t e of Montana from an o r d e r of t h e Powell County D i s t r i c t Court, t h e Honorable John B. McClernan p r e s i d i n g , dismissing charges of a felony escape which had been f i l e d a g a i n s t t h e defendants. Defendants were inmates i n t h e Montana S t a t e Prison and both w e r e p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a p r i s o n e r furlough program. Defendant Whiteshield walked away from h i s furlough i n Butte, Montana, was a r r e s t e d i n Lincoln, Nebraska and was r e t u r n e d t o t h e S t a t e of Montana. The defendant Sorenson walked away from h i s furlough i n Missoula, Montana, was a r r e s t e d i n San Diego, C a l i f o r n i a and r e t u r n e d t o t h e S t a t e of Montana. Both had t h e i r furloughs revoked and were charged w i t h a felony escape under s e c t i o n 45-7-306, MCA. The D i s t r i c t Court dismissed t h e charges on t h e b a s i s t h a t walking away from a furlough i s n o t a f e l o n y escape under t h e s t a t u t e . The s o l e i s s u e i s whether l e a v i n g a furlough is a felony escape. S e c t i o n 45-7-306, MCA r e a d s i n whole a s follows: "ESCAPE. (1) " O f f i c i a l d e t e n t i o n " means imprisonment which r e s u l t e d from a convic- t i o n f o r a n o f f e n s e , confinement f o r an o f f e n s e , confinement of a person charged w i t h an o f f e n s e , d e t e n t i o n by a peace of- f i c e r pursuant t o a r r e s t , d e t e n t i o n f o r e x t r a d i t i o n o r d e p o r t a t i o n , o r any lawful d e t e n t i o n f o r t h e purpose of t h e p r o t e c t i o n of t h e w e l f a r e of t h e person d e t a i n e d o r f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n of s o c i e t y . ' O f f i c i a l d e t e n t i o n ' does n o t i n c l u d e s u p e r v i s i o n of probation o r p a r o l e , c o n s t r a i n t i n c i - d e n t a l t o r e l e a s e on b a i l , o r an unlawful a r r e s t u n l e s s t h e person a r r e s t e d employed p h y s i c a l f o r c e , ,a t h r e a t of p h y s i c a l f o r c e , o r a weapon t o escape. " ( 2 ) A person s u b j e c t t o o f f i c i a l d e t e n t i o n commits t h e offense of escape i f he knowingly o r purposely removes himself from o f f i c i a l d e t e n t i o n o r f a i l s t o r e t u r n t o o f f i c i a l de- t e n t i o n following temporary leave granted f o r a s p e c i f i c purpose of limited t i m e . " ( 3 ) A person convicted of the o f f e s e of escape s h a l l be: " ( a ) imprisoned i i i t h e s t a t e prison f o r a term n o t t o exceed twenty ( 2 0 ) y e a r s i f he escapes from a s t a t e prison, county j a i l , o r c i t y j a i l by t h e use o r t h r e a t of f o r c e , physical violence, weapon, o r simulated wea- pon; " ( b ) imprisoned i n t h e s t a t e prison f o r a term n o t t o exceed t e n ( 1 0 ) y e a r s i f he: " ( i ) escapes from a s t a t e prison, county j a i l , o r c i t y j a i l ; o r " ( i i ) escapes from another o f f i c i a l deten- t i o n by t h e use o r t h r e a t of f o r c e , physical violence, weapon, o r simulated weapon; o r " ( c ) f i n e d n o t t o exceed f i v e hundred dol- l a r s ($500) o r imprisoned i n t h e county j a i l f o r a term n o t t o exceed 6 months, o r both, i f he commits escape under cir- cumstances o t h e r than ( a ) and (b) of t h i s subsection." The f i r s t two paragraphs of t h i s s t a t u t e d e f i n e t h e crime of escape. The t h i r d paragraph, which i s c o n t r o l l i n g , d e f i n e s t h e punishment f o r t h e crime of escape and d e l i n - e a t e s felony escape from misdemeanor escape. The respondents herein do n o t argue t h a t s e c t i o n 45-7- 306, MCA does n o t apply t o them. Both of them admit walking away from a furlough s i t u a t i o n , however they argue t h a t t h e s t a t u t e can only be applied t o them on t h e b a s i s of a m i s - demeanor charge. The respondents do n o t c o n t e s t the S t a t e ' s argument t h a t they were s u b j e c t t o t h e o f f i c i a l detention under paragraph 1 o r t h a t they committed t h e offense of escape under paragraph 2 of t h e s t a t u t e . Respondents' argument i s t h a t they d i d n o t commit an o f f e n s e by t h e use of f o r c e and t h e r e f o r e they a r e n o t punishable under paragraph 3 ( a ) o r 3 ( b ) ( i i ) of t h e s t a t u t e and they d i d n o t escape from t h e s t a t e p r i s o n , a county j a i l , a c i t y j a i l , and a r e t h e r e f o r e n o t punishable under 3 (b) (i) of t h e s t a t u t e . The S t a t e does n o t c o n t e s t respondents' argument t h a t t h e escape w a s n o t by means of f o r c e . The a p p e l l a n t S t a t e does c o n t e s t t h a t t h e escape was n o t from t h e s t a t e p r i s o n . The S t a t e argues respondents a c t u a l l y escaped from t h e s t a t e p r i s o n , r e l y i n g on s e c t i o n 46-23-402, MCA. I n analyzing t h i s argument, w e f i r s t f i n d t h a t it f l i e s i n t h e f a c e of common sense. The f a c t is, Sorenson escaped while he w a s on furlough i n t h e C i t y of Missoula with freedom t o walk t h e streets of t h a t c i t y . Likewise, Whiteshield escaped while on furlough i n t h e C i t y of Butte with freedom t o move about t h a t c i t y . To say t h a t they w e r e i n a state p r i s o n j u s t i s n o t t r u e , and i n our opinion it would amount t o f i c t i o n inadequate t o form t h e b a s i s f o r a f e l o n y conviction. Second, s e c t i o n 46-23-402, MCA r e l i e d on by t h e appel- l a n t S t a t e does nothing t o answer t h e q u e s t i o n of t h i s c a s e . That s e c t i o n does say t h a t a furlough " s h a l l s e r v e t o extend t h e l i m i t s of confinement f o r treatment a s w e l l a s f o r j u r i s d i c t i o n a l purposes." But, t h a t language does n o t answer whether l e a v i n g furlough i s a f e l o n y o r a misdemeanor escape. Only t h e language of t h e escape s t a t u t e i t s e l f can answer t h i s question. S e c t i o n 46-23-402, MCA o n l y provides t h e b a s i s f o r making l e a v i n g furlough a crime. I f a f u r - loughee was n o t under t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of a p r i s o n , l e a v i n g furlough would n o t be a n escape a t a l l . Third, w e agree w i t h respondents' c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s argument ignores t h e purposes expressed i n paragraph 3 of t h e escape s t a t u t e . That paragraph c l a s s i f i e s t h e escape according t o t h e r i s k t h a t i s c r e a t e d . Escaping from t h e s t a t e p r i s o n c r e a t e s a s e r i o u s r i s k deserving of a felony punishment because t h e p r i s o n i s maintained by guards who have a d u t y t o prevent escapes and t h e circumstances a r e such t h a t attempts t o escape c r e a t e t h e r i s k of violence. The r i s k of v i o l e n c e i s increased where t h e escapee u s e s f o r c e . Thus under paragraph 3 ( a ) , a f o r c e f u l escape from t h e p r i s o n may be punished by up t o twenty (20) y e a r s i n p r i s o n ; and under 3 ( b ) an escape from a p r i s o n i s punishable w i t h up t o t e n (10) y e a r s . Leaving t h e l o c a t i o n of o n e ' s furlough does n o t create a r i s k . And t h e f a c t t h a t t h e i r escape does n o t c r e a t e a r i s k i s t h e b a s i s f o r t r e a t i n g t h e s e circumstances a s a misdemeanor under paragraph 2. W e n o t e t h a t t h e o f f i c i a l commission comment on s e c t i o n 45-7-306, MCA i n t h e f i r s t paragraph r e a d s as follows: "The s e c t i o n c l a s s i f i e s escapes according t o t h e r i s k they c r e a t e . Punishment i s more se- v e r e f o r t h e o f f e n s e when committed by use of o r t h r e a t of f o r c e , p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e , weapon o r simulated weapon. The grading of t h e o f f e n s e by r e l y i n g on t h e p r i s o n e r ' s use of f o r c e i s a c t u a l l y a r e t u r n t o t h e common law, s i n c e e a r l y common law c l e a r l y d i s t i n q u i s h e d between escapes w i t h and without t h e use of f o r c e . The grading scheme i m p l i c i t i n t h e o l d code by which punish- ment i s provided i n r e f e r e n c e t o t h e type of confinement, i s n o t e n t i r e l y abandoned i n s e c t i o n 94-7-306. (Now S 45-7-306, MCA.) For example, u s e of f o r c e i n escaping from a n o n i n s t i t u t i o n a l d e t e n t i o n c a l l s f o r a lesser punishment than escape from t h e p r i s o n , county o r c i t y j a i l . F u r t h e r , an escape without use of f o r c e from a noncustodial d e t e n t i o n a s provided i n s u b s e c t i o n 3 ( c ) removes t h e o f f e n s e from t h e f e l o n y c a t e - gory a l t o g e t h e r . " This commission comment makes c l e a r t h a t under t h e circumstances i n t h i s c a s e t h e respondents w e r e punishable only under t h e misdemeanor s e c t i o n of t h e escape s t a t u t e . Therefore, w e a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d i s m i s s a l of t h e felony charge. W e concur: Chief J u s t i c e