Title: State v. Powell

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Powell  (96-475); 167 Vt. 294; 707 A.2d 272

[Filed 26-Nov-1997]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                            No. 96-475

State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
    v.                                       District Court of Vermont,
                                             Unit No. 3, Essex Circuit
 
Aaron J. Powell                              June Term, 1997

Alan W. Cheever, J.

       Jan R. Paul, Essex County State's Attorney, St. Johnsbury, for
  plaintiff-appellee

       Rachel A. Hexter of Franco & Hexter, P.C., Newport, for
  defendant-appellant

       PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

       JOHNSON, J.  Defendant appeals his conviction of felony escape (13
  V.S.A. § 1501(a)(2)) on the grounds that (1) when he escaped he was not "in
  custody as a result of a felony" within the meaning of the statute, and (2)
  the court erred by denying his motion to enforce a deferred-sentencing
  agreement.  We affirm.

       On September 15, 1994, defendant's girlfriend called the police and
  alleged that defendant had assaulted her.  An officer arrived and arrested
  defendant without a warrant and brought him to the St. Johnsbury police
  barracks for processing.  While the officer was drafting his charging
  affidavit, defendant left the barracks and was apprehended a few hours
  later as he was hitchhiking along I-91.

       Following the escape, the officer completed his charging affidavit,
  dated the same day as the arrest and escape, which included the
  misdemeanors of simple assault (13 V.S.A. § 1023) and reckless endangerment
  (13 V.S.A. § 1025).  The affidavit also included a charge of escape from
  custody (13 V.S.A. § 1501), which was not identified as either a
  misdemeanor or a felony.

 

       The State subsequently charged defendant with simple assault, reckless
  endangerment, first-degree aggravated domestic assault (13 V.S.A. §
  1043(a)(2)), and felony escape.  The complaining witness, however, later
  recanted her statement, and the State's Attorney withdrew all charges
  except for felony escape.  Prior to trial, defendant moved to dismiss the
  felony escape charge on grounds that dismissal of the underlying criminal
  charges negated the offense of escape and that the information charging
  felony escape was not supported by the facts underlying his escape as a
  matter of law.  Following denial of the motion, defendant was convicted of
  the escape charge in a jury trial.  The court denied defendant's motion for
  reconsideration, and the present appeal followed.

                                I.

       The first issue is whether defendant was in custody as a result of a
  felony.  Defendant concedes that he was in lawful custody when he left the
  police barracks.  He argues, however, that he had been charged only with
  misdemeanor offenses at the time of his escape.  As a result, defendant
  claims that he was not "in custody as a result of a felony" for purposes of
  13 V.S.A. § 1501(a)(2).(FN1)

       To obtain a conviction under 13 V.S.A. § 1501(a)(2), the State must
  prove that defendant was in lawful custody and escaped or attempted to
  escape from an officer.  The crime is a misdemeanor if the person was in
  custody as a result of a misdemeanor, and it is a felony if the person was
  in custody as a result of a felony.

       Custody, as used in the escape statute, is not limited to custody
  obtained after the state's attorney files formal charges, or the State
  proves defendant's actual culpability in the underlying offense.  See State
  v. Turgeon, 165 Vt. 28, 34,