Opinion ID: 2584939
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Escape from Custody Special Circumstance

Text: Defendant contends the special circumstance of murder for the purpose of perfecting or attempting to perfect escape from lawful custody (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(5)) must be set aside because he was not in lawful custody when he killed Deputy Perrigo, and further, that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he violated the law regarding escape when he fatally shot the deputy. We find this claim too devoid of merit. (16) At the time of his arrest in 1991, section 4532, subdivision (a), provided that, Every prisoner arrested and booked for, charged with, or convicted of a misdemeanor ... who thereafter escapes or attempts to escape from [the] county or city jail, prison, industrial farm, or industrial road camp or from the custody of the officer or person in charge of him  is guilty of a felony. (Former § 4532, subd. (a), as amended by Stats. 1984, ch. 1432, § 7, p. 5025, italics added.) When a suspect flees from custody before being charged, convicted, or booked for the offense for which he was arrested, he is not subject to prosecution for violating section 4532. ( Wood v. Superior Court (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 564, 566 [120 Cal.Rptr. 214] ( Wood ).) Initially, we note defendant made a pretrial motion to dismiss the escape charge and the special circumstance allegation of murder to perfect an escape on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to establish that his arrest was lawful. The motion was denied. After the prosecution rested its case-in-chief at the guilt phase, defendant moved pursuant to section 1118.1 for a directed verdict in his favor on both the escape charge (§ 4532) and the special circumstance allegation of murder to perfect escape from lawful custody (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(5)). He contended, citing Wood, supra, 46 Cal.App.3d 564, that the crime of escape required that he be booked, charged, or convicted before he could attempt to escape or escape, and that he was not booked for the offense for which he was arrested prior to being transported from the Burney substation to the main jail in Redding. The trial court treated this legal basis for the motion for a directed verdict as a uniform challenge to both the escape charge and the special circumstance allegation. There is, however, an important distinction to be drawn here. In his argument before this court challenging the murder to perfect escape from lawful custody special circumstance finding, defendant acknowledges he was arrested, albeit unlawfully. We have, however, already concluded defendant's arrest for public intoxication pursuant to section 647(f) was lawful, in connection with our rejection of his challenge to the murder of a peace officer special circumstance. ( Ante, at p. 672.) That legal basis having now been removed as a challenge to this murder to perfect escape from lawful custody special circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(5)), we believe this special circumstance finding is rendered legally valid, regardless whether defendant was thereafter validly booked for the public intoxication offense, a requirement going to the validity of the section 4532 conviction. Put differently, a formal charge and conviction of escape under section 4532 is not required to establish the murder to perfect an escape from lawful custody special circumstance, although one happens to be present in this case. Given the lawfulness of defendant's arrest, his escape from the lawful custody of Deputy Perrigo, for purposes of establishing the murder to perfect an escape special circumstance, cannot be found to turn on the validity of his conviction of the crime of escape pursuant to section 4532 alone, regardless whether he was properly booked for that offense, as is required to establish the validity of that conviction. ( Wood, supra, 46 Cal.App.3d at p. 566.) If that were the case, then had defendant killed Deputy Perrigo for the purpose of escaping from the deputy's custody after defendant's lawful arrest for a violation of section 647(f) but before they reached the Burney substation and defendant could be booked on the public intoxication charge, defendant would be immunized from prosecution for murder for the purpose of perfecting escape from lawful custody. Turning to defendant's claim that the special circumstance of murder to perfect escape from lawful custody must be set aside because he was not properly booked on the public intoxication charge for which he was arrested within the meaning of the escape statute (§ 4532), we find the claim unavailing. Defendant places principal reliance on Deputy Pitts's trial testimony that he (defendant) was not fingerprinted or booked upon arrival at the Burney substation because that usually happened at Redding. Deputy Pitts's testimony, however, is not controlling on this point of law. (17) Rather, the term to book is defined in section 7, subdivision 21, as  the recordation of an arrest in official police records, and the taking by the police of fingerprints and photographs of the person arrested, or any of these acts following an arrest. (Italics added.) Defendant's arrest clearly was recorded in official police records prior to his being transported from the Burney substation toward Redding; hence that fact itself establishes that he was technically booked on the section 647(f) charge within the meaning of section 7, item 21, and the escape statute (§ 4532). Shasta County Sheriff's Sergeant Bradd McDannold testified, in connection with the section 1118.1 motion for a directed verdict on this special circumstance allegation, that a probable cause declaration is normally filled out and placed in the arrestee's permanent jacket for inclusion in the sheriff's records, and that Deputy Perrigo followed that procedure in defendant's case. Additionally, the Burney substation maintains an official daily log recording the activities of all of its officers, which is kept by the records supervisor and is an official record of the Shasta County Sheriff's Department. The daily log for the date and time of defendant's arrest recorded all pertinent information surrounding his arrest. We therefore find that the probable cause declaration and the daily log memorializing the details of defendant's arrest constituted recordation of [his] arrest in official police records within the meaning of the definition of book[ed] found in section 7, item 21. Additionally, Sergeant McDannold testified that the reason defendant was not fingerprinted or photographed upon being brought into the substation on the morning of October 21 was that his fingerprints and photograph were already on file with the department as a result of his earlier arrest in July of that same year by the same agency in connection with the prowling/public intoxication incident. In such instances, all that was required to complete the official booking process at the Burney substation and to authorize transport of defendant to the main jail in Redding was the completion of the probable cause declaration. Sergeant McDannold testified further that public intoxication is not a retainable offense requiring fingerprinting in the first instance. We conclude the record establishes that following defendant's valid arrest for a violation of section 647(f), and his transport to the Burney substation, defendant was booked on the charge within the statutory definition of that term, and hence the evidence is sufficient to support all the requisite elements of the murder to perfect escape from lawful custody special circumstance finding.