Title: STATE v WHITESHIELD SORENSEN
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 14963
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: January 18, 1980

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