Title: State v. Alberigo
Citation: 109 Ariz. 294, 508 P.2d 1156
Docket Number: 2267
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: April 19, 1973

109 Ariz. 294 (1973) 508 P.2d 1156 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Salvatore Joseph ALBERIGO, Jr., Appellant. No. 2267. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. April 19, 1973. *295 Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Mary Z. Chandler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. William M. Egan, Flagstaff, Preble E. Petit, Phoenix, Jerry N. Thomas, Flagstaff, for appellant. CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. This is an appeal by the defendant, Salvatore Alberigo, Jr., from jury verdicts and judgments of guilty to the crimes of escape, § 13-396 A.R.S., and obstructing justice, § 13-541 A.R.S., and concurrent sentences of not less than one year on the escape charge and of not less than seven nor more than fifteen years on the obstructing justice charge. We are asked to answer two questions on appeal: The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows. Defendant was in custody on an unrelated charge, and was also being held for extradition to another state. He was originally arrested by the Flagstaff City Police when they found him in possession of a stolen motorcycle. At this first arrest, the defendant struck the officer, knocked him to the ground, and then tried to run. The defendant claims that while in the city jail and the county jail, he was repeatedly threatened by numerous officers that they would get him for striking a police officer. Defendant claims that the officers even went so far as to imply that he would not make it to trial. Defendant claims that up until the moment of his escape and even thereafter he was in fear of reprisals by the police. While in the process of being taken from the Coconino County Jail to a doctor's office for medical treatment, the defendant escaped from custody. Defendant claims that this fear led him to escape and try to make it to his lawyer in California and turn himself in once there. To facilitate his escape, the defendant grabbed a deputy sheriff around the neck, grabbed the deputy's gun from its holster, *296 and held it to the deputy's head. The deputy testified: He then instructed the deputy to drive some distance outside of town and once there defendant took the deputy's weapons and car keys and made his escape through the woods. He was captured shortly thereafter. Defendant was charged with escape, § 13-396 A.R.S.; obstructing justice, § 13-541, subsecs. A and B A.R.S.; kidnapping, § 13-491, subsecs. A and B A.R.S.; and assault with a deadly weapon, § 13-249, subsecs. A and B A.R.S. The jury returned verdicts of not guilty to the charges of kidnapping and assault with a deadly weapon and guilty to the crime of escape and obstructing justice. WAS IT ERROR TO REFUSE DEFENDANT'S REQUESTED INSTRUCTION? The defendant requested that the court give an instruction concerning involuntary departure from custody as a defense to escape. The defendant requested instruction No. 6 which reads as follows: Instead of this instruction the court gave an instruction on intent as follows: The instruction requested by defendant was taken from People v. Wester, 237 *297 Cal. App. 2d 232, 46 Cal. Rptr. 699 (1965), in which the defendant claimed his companion threatened to kill him if he would not go along. The facts distinguish this case from the instant case and the instruction is only applicable in the specific circumstances of that case. It is well settled law that conditions in a prison afford no justification for escape. People v. Richards, 269 Cal. App. 2d 768, 75 Cal. Rptr. 597 (1969); State v. King, 372 S.W.2d 857 (Mo. 1963), solitary confinement; People v. Miller, 196 Cal. App. 2d 171, 16 Cal. Rptr. 408 (1961), fear of prison officers; State v. Palmer, 6 Terry, Del., 308, 72 A.2d 442 (1950), bad food, brutal guards, recreation, education and medical attention inadequate; People v. Whipple, 100 Cal. App. 261, 279 P. 1008 (1929), intolerable living conditions and brutal and inhuman treatment by guards; State v. Cahill, 196 Iowa 486, 194 N.W. 191 (1923), cell infested with bugs, worms and vermin, and without bed or chair, unhealthy, food consisting of an inadequate supply of bread alone; Johnson v. State, 122 Ga. 172, 50 S.E. 65 (1905), escape from Georgia chain gang to avoid unmerited punishment by guards; Hinkle v. Commonwealth, 23 Ky.Law Rep. 1988, 66 S.W. 816 (1902), fear on the part of prisoner in custody of sheriff of being shot by a third person; State v. Davis, 14 Nev. 439, 33 Am.Rep. 563 (1880), condition of jail filthy, loathsome and vermin infested; see also 70 A.L.R.2d 1430 at 1452-1453. The jury was adequately instructed as to the intent required for conviction. The jury was also instructed correctly that conditions of confinement do not excuse an escape. We find no error in the instructions. WAS DEFENDANT PROPERLY SENTENCED? The jury was read the information which stated: And the jury was instructed as follows: The form of verdict, however, did not mention that the defendant was armed with a gun. The verdict stated: The judge then stated: In the formal written "judgment and commitment to prison" it states that the *298 defendant is guilty of obstructing justice while armed with a gun. The defendant was sentenced to not less than seven nor more than fifteen years in the State Prison, pursuant to the enhanced sentencing provision of § 13-541, subsec. B A.R.S. Defendant argues that it was error to sentence him under § 13-541, subsec. B A.R.S., since the jury made no specific finding that the defendant was armed with a gun. Since the maximum punishment under § 13-541, subsec. A A.R.S. is five years, the sentence imposed by the court would be in excess of that authorized. While we believe that the better practice would be to include in the form of verdict and pronouncement of judgment the fact that the crime was committed while armed with a gun, it was not error in the instant case. State v. Tosatto, 107 Ariz. 231, 485 P.2d 556 (1971) is dispositive of this issue. In that case we stated: There is no question in the instant case that the defendant used a gun in committing the crime of obstructing justice and we find no error in the sentencing, it being within the limits set by statute. Judgments and sentences affirmed. HAYS, C.J., STRUCKMEYER LOCKWOOD, and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur.