NO. 95-545

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

1996

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JAMIE SCOTT CHANDLER,

Defendant and Appellant

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Second Judicial District,

In and for the County of Silver Bow,

The Honorable James E. Purcell, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

William F. Hooks, Appellate Defender, Helena,

Montana

For Respondent:

Honorable Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General;

Sennifer Anders, Assistant Attorney General,

Helena, Montana

Robert M. McCarthy, County Attorney; Brad

Newman, Deputy County Attorney, Butte, Montana

Filed:

Submitted on Briefs: July 18, 1996

Decided: August 20, 1996
Chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Jamie Scott Chandler pled guilty before the Second Judicial

District Court, Silver Bow County, to felony escape. He appeals an

issue reserved, concerning the court's denial of his motion to

dismiss on the ground that a prerelease inmate is not subject to

"official detention" within the meaning of the escape statute,

5 45-7-306, MCA. We affirm.

The issue is whether Chandler was lawfully convicted of felony

escape pursuant to § 45-7-306, MCA, as interpreted in recent

decisions of this Court, when having been placed in a prerelease

center while serving a term of imprisonment for a felony conviction, he fled one morning instead of going to his place of

employment.

In an affidavit in support of the State's application for

leave to file an information, the prosecutor represented that

Chandler was serving a term of imprisonment as a result of a felony

conviction in Flathead County, Montana. He was assigned to the

Butte Pre-Release Center and was employed by The Montana Standard,

a local newspaper.

Chandler failed to return to the Pre-Release Center after work

on October 14, 1994. When he did not return, Pre-Release Center

staff contacted his employer and were told that Chandler had failed

to report for work on that date.

Upon determining that Chandler had escaped, law enforcement

authorities obtained a warrant for his arrest. He was arrested in
Spokane, Washington, in December 1994 and was extradited and

returned to the Montana State Prison.

Chandler moved to dismiss the information on three grounds,

including the ground that he was not subject to "official detention" as required by 5 45-7-306, MCA, the statute defining the

offense of escape. The State opposed the motion, and the District

Court denied it without a hearing. Chandler subsequently entered

a plea agreement with the State, reserving the right to appeal the

denial of his motion to dismiss.

Was Chandler lawfully convicted of felony escape pursuant to

5 45-7-306, MCA, as interpreted in recent decisions of this Court,

when having been placed in a prerelease center while serving a term

of imprisonment for a felony conviction, he fled one morning

instead of going to his place of employment?

For Chandler's conduct to constitute an escape as proscribed

by § 45-7-306, MCA, the State must establish that Chandler

knowingly or purposely removed himself from or failed to return to

"official detention." Official detention includes

imprisonment which resulted from a conviction for an

offense, confinement for an offense, confinement of a

person charged with an offense, detention by a peace

officer pursuant to arrest, detention for extradition or

deportation, placement in a community corrections

facility or program, supervision while under a supervised

release program, participation in a county jail work

program under 7-32-2225 through 7-32-2227, or any lawful

detention for the purpose of the protection of the

welfare of the person detained or for the protection of

society. "Official detention" does not include supervision of probation or parole, constraint incidental to

release on bail, or an unlawful arrest unless the person

3
arrested employed physical force, a threat of physical

force, or a weapon to escape.

Section 45-7-306(l), MCA.

The District Court's denial of the motion to dismiss was a

conclusion of law that the State could prosecute Chandler for

escape because he was subject to official detention. This Court

reviews conclusions of law to determine whether the district

court's interpretation of the law was correct. State v. Christensen (1994), 265 Mont. 374, 37576, 077 P.2d 468, 469.

In State v. Roberts (Mont. 1996), 912 P.2d 812, 53 St.Rep.

181, Roberts had been released from the Montana State Prison into

the parole-related furlough program under 5 46-23-215(3), MCA. The

issue was whether Roberts was "subject to official detention" in a

"supervised release program" as described in § 45-7-306(l), MCA.

This Court concluded that the parole-related furlough program was

not a "supervised release program," and that Roberts was not

therefore "subject to official detention" and could not be

prosecuted for escape. Roberts, 912 P.Zd at 815.

In this case, too, the issue is whether the appellant was

"subject to official detention" under § 45-7-306(l), MCA. However,

here, the State argues that the Butte Pre-Release Center is a

"community corrections facility or program," not a "supervised

release program." Therefore, Roberts does not control.

The correctional policy of the State of Montana is to deal

with nonviolent offenders in ways other than imprisonment. Section

46l&101(3) (b), MCA. Section 46-18-105, MCA, authorizes the

Department of Corrections to provide community corrections

4
facilities or programs for the rehabilitation of nonviolent felony

offenders as authorized under the Montana Community Corrections

Act, Title 53, Chapter 30, part 3, MCA. A "community corrections

facility or program" is defined under the Act as

a community-based or community-oriented facility or

program, other than a jail, that:

(a) is operated by a unit of local government, a

tribal government, or a nongovernmental agency; and

(b) provides programs and services to aid offenders

in:

(i) obtaining and holding regular employment;

(ii) enrolling in and maintaining academic courses;

(iii) participating invocational trainingprograms;

(iv) utilizing the resources of the community to

meet their personal and family needs;

(v) obtaining the benefits of specialized treatment

services that exist within the community; and

(vi) paying restitution or performing community

restitution to crime victims.

Section 53-30-303(Z), MCA. While this definition does not

specifically refer to prerelease centers, it is clear that they are

considered community corrections facilities under the Act.

Section 53-l-202(2), MCA, identifies correctional services

provided by the Department of Corrections. That statute provides

that adult correctional services include, in relevant part:

(c) appropriate community-based programs for the

placement, supervision, and rehabilitation of adult

felons who meet the criteria developed by the department

for placement:

(i) in prerelease centers;

(ii) under intensive supervision;

(iii) under parole or probation pursuant to Title

46, chapter 23, part 2; or

(iv) in other appropriate programs.

Section 53-l-202(2) (c), MCA (emphasis added). Section 53-l203(l) Cc), MCA, allows the Department to contract with private,

nonprofit Montana corporations to establish and maintain "community

5
based prerelease centers" for purposes of preparing prison inmates

who are approaching parole eligibility or discharge for release

into the community.

These statutes indicate that prerelease centers are part of

the community corrections system which exists as an alternative to

imprisonment. There are no other statutes or rules which define

prerelease facilities or indicate how they might fit differently

into our correctional system. We conclude that the Butte PreRelease Center is a "community corrections facility or program" and

that, therefore, placement at the Butte Pre-Release Center rendered

Chandler "subject to official detention."

In State v. Nelson (Mont. 19961, 910 P.Zd 247, 53 St.Rep. 50,

three inmates of Montana State Prison escaped while on daily work

assignments at the Deer Lodge, Montana, golf course. This Court

held that they were improperly sentenced for felony escape.

However, our decision in Nelson must, necessarily, be read in the

context of its facts. The Montana State Prison inmates in that

case were on work assignment outside the prison walls. They did

not escape from the state prison itself, nor did they escape while

in transit to or from that facility in which they were imprisoned.

Accordingly, given those facts and the plain language of § 45-7-

306, MCA, the only provision of that statute which would have

qualified their escape as a felony, subsection (3) (b) (i), did not

apply. Nelson, 910 P.2d at 253.

In the instant case, however, the facts are significantly

different. Here, Chandler was assigned to a prerelease center as

6
part of a "community corrections facility or program." As we have

already pointed out, "community corrections facility or program" is

a statutorily-defined term of art encompassing more than merely a

specific place of residence, incarceration or imprisonment.

Section 53-30-303(2), MCA. Such a "facility or program" contemplates and, in fact, mandates that participants will be involved

with employment, educational services, vocational training,

resources, treatment and restitutional activities outside of the

confines of the particular place where they are required to reside

when not engaged in such services, programs or activities.

Accordingly, where, as here, a person assigned to a "community

corrections facility or program" purposely or knowingly and without

authorization removes himself from or fails to return to either the

prerelease facility where he is required to reside as part of that

program or one of the rehabilitative programs or services specified

in § 53-30-303(2), MCA, then his conduct falls within the plain

language of § 45-7-306(3) (b) (i), MCA, and subjects him to punishment for felony escape if he is charged with and convicted of that

offense.

We hold that the District Court was correct in concluding that

Chandler was lawfully convicted of felony escape pursuant to § 45-

7-306, MCA. In doing so, however, we also observe that strict

application of the language of the statute--our duty under 5 l-2-

101, MCA--to specific fact situations produces results that are not

easily reconciled from a common sense point of view. Are prison

inmates on a golf course work assignment who unlawfully become
intoxicated and steal a vehicle and head for the nearest large city

on the public highways (Nelson--guilty of misdemeanor escape) less

dangerous or less culpable than a prerelease center resident who

leaves for his job and never shows up (Chandler--felony escape)?

While it is, obviously, the legislature's duty to define crimes and

their punishments, we suggest that the offense of escape and its

punishment bear some thoughtful reappraisal.

Affirmed.

We concur:
August 20, 1996

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the following certified order was sent by United States mail, prepaid,

to the following named:

William F. Hooks

Appellate Defender

P.O. Box

Helena, MT 59624

Jamie Scott Chandler

700 Conley Lake Rd.

Deer Lodge, MT 59722

Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek

Attorney General

Justice Bldg.

Helena, MT 59620

Robert M. McCarthy, County Attorney

Brad Newman, Deputy

155 W. Granite Street

Butte, MT 59701

ED SMITH

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF MONTANA

BY: ‘@zw

Deputy