Opinion ID: 889688
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Official Detention

Text: ¶ 16 Roundstone contends dismissal of the escape charge is required under State v. Roberts, 275 Mont. 365, 912 P.2d 812 (1996). The State argues that § 45-7-306, MCA, was substantially amended after Roberts. ¶ 17 Roberts was an inmate at MSP and was granted parole subject to conditions, including finding housing and employment. Roberts, 275 Mont. at 366, 912 P.2d at 813. Roberts was approved for a ten-day furlough from MSP. Roberts, 275 Mont. at 366, 912 P.2d at 813. Roberts failed to meet with his parole officer as scheduled and was charged with felony escape under § 45-7-306, MCA. Roberts, 275 Mont. at 366, 912 P.2d at 813. Roberts moved to dismiss the charge arguing that he was not subject to official detention while on furlough. Roberts, 275 Mont. at 366, 912 P.2d at 813. The State contended that Roberts was in a supervised release program, a category of `official detention' under § 45-7-306(1), MCA. Roberts, 275 Mont. at 367, 912 P.2d at 813. The district court denied his motion, and he was convicted. Roberts, 275 Mont. at 367, 912 P.2d at 813. On appeal, we analyzed the supervised release program statutes and administrative rules, concluding the term `supervised release program' contained in § 45-7-306(1), MCA, clearly and unambiguously refers to the supervised release program . . . and not to the furlough associated with parole proceedings under § 46-23-215, MCA. Roberts, 275 Mont. at 368, 912 P.2d at 814. Because it was clear that Roberts was released from the MSP into the parole-related furlough program and not into the supervised release program, we reversed. Roberts, 275 Mont. at 369, 912 P.2d at 815. ¶ 18 As the State notes, the statutes have been revised since Roberts. Section 45-7-306(1), MCA (1993), applied in Roberts, defined `[o]fficial detention' as a listing of imprisonment, confinements, detentions and program placements. [2] In 1997, the statute was amended, and now more broadly defines `[o]fficial detention' to mean the  placement of a person in the legal custody of a municipality, a county, or the state as a result of, inter alia, an arrest, detention, charge, conviction or program placement. [3] See § 45-7-306(1)(a), MCA (emphasis added). Legislative history reveals that one purpose of the 1997 amendments was to address our decision in Roberts. See Mont. Sen. Jud. Comm., Minutes of the Hearing on H. Bill 43, 55th Legis., Reg. Sess., Exhibit 5, at 1 (Jan. 29, 1997) (The 1997 proposed amendments are intended to clarify finally that any person who has been charged with or convicted of a felony who is under lawful custody of the state . . . (other than a probationer or parolee) is guilty of felony escape if he escapes from or fails to return to that custody following temporary leave granted for a specific purpose. . . . This will also remedy another Montana Supreme Court opinion, State v. Roberts , in which the Court held that an escape while on a 10-day leave from MSP to find employment for future parole status did not constitute a felony.). Moreover, the supervised release statutes and the administrative rules referenced in Roberts have all been repealed. See Laws of Montana, 1997, ch. 322, § 15, at 1483; see also Admin. R.M. 20.7.102, 20.7.103. Thus, Roberts does not control the outcome here. ¶ 19 Notably, the holding in another case, relied upon by the State, has also been the subject of legislative action. The State argues that because Roundstone was furloughed from a prerelease center, he was in a community corrections facility or program and therefore within official detention under § 45-7-306(1)(a)(iv), MCA. In support, the State cites Chandler, 277 Mont. at 480, 922 P.2d at 1166, where we held, after a survey of the applicable statutes, that a prerelease center is a community corrections facility or program for purposes of the escape statute. See also State v. Romannose, 281 Mont. 84, 89, 931 P.2d 1304, 1307 (1997). ¶ 20 However, in 1997, the Legislature enacted House Bill 125, which clarified that community corrections facilities were distinct from prerelease centers. The bill authorized courts to sentence offenders to a prerelease center or prerelease program as a sentencing option separate from community corrections facilities. See Laws of Montana, 1997, ch. 322, § 1, at 1471-73 (emphasis omitted). According to a DOC exhibit submitted to legislative committees, Section 1 of the proposed statute clarifies that community correction facilities and pre-release centers are two different entities by allowing judges to sentence offenders to either facility. Mont. Sen. Finance & Claims Comm., Minutes of the Hearing on H. Bill 125, 55th Legis., Reg. Sess., Exhibit 1, at 1 (Mar. 19, 1997) (emphasis added). [4] The exhibit also stated: There are many references in the statutes to community corrections facilities, but, only a few references to pre-release centers. Unfortunately, everyone from attorneys and judges to lay persons perceive community corrections facility and pre-release center are interchangeable, and treat them as interchangeable. They are not. A community corrections facility is something created by and for an individual community pursuant to the community corrections act, M.C.A. § 53-30-301 et seq. A pre-release center is a department of corrections entity pursuant to M.C.A. § 53-1-202 which the department administers. We need to clearly differentiate between the two, and specify how they should be treated differently by department of corrections, judges, offenders, and attorneys. Mont. Sen. Finance & Claims Comm., Minutes of the Hearing on H. Bill 125, Exhibit 1, at 1. The legislation made other changes to distinguish between the two programs. [5] As testified by DOC representatives, [t]his bill takes the DOC out of the community corrections process. . . . This bill intends to clarify that the DOC's role is in pre-release and not in community corrections facilities. The community corrections business is a local entity. Mont. Sen. Finance & Claims Comm., Minutes of the Hearing on H. Bill 125, at 2-3. The legislation was intended to clearly differentiate between prerelease programs administered by the DOC and community corrections facilities administered locally. Consequently, Chandler is no longer controlling on this question, and the State's argument that Roundstone was in official detention by virtue of being in a community corrections facility or program under § 45-7-306(1)(a)(iv), MCA, fails. ¶ 21 The State also argues that Roundstone was subject to official detention while on furlough pursuant to § 45-7-306(1)(a)(i), MCA, by which detention is defined as the placement of a person in the legal custody of . . . the state as a result of. . . a conviction for an offense. . . . The State argues this definition was satisfied because when Roundstone was in prison, he was in the legal custody of the State as a result of a conviction for an offense. When Roundstone was transferred to HPRC, a DOC program, he remained in the custody of DOC. Accordingly, the State argues that [w]hen Roundstone was temporarily released on a furlough, his status did not change and he continued to be subject to official detention. [6] ¶ 22 State prisons and prerelease centers are part of adult correctional services included in the department of corrections to carry out the purposes of the department. Sections 53-1-202(1); -202(2)(a) and (b)(i), MCA. DOC is required to maintain, by contract, prerelease centers for such purposes as preparing inmates of a Montana prison who are approaching parole eligibility or discharge for release into the community. Section 53-1-203(1)(c)(i), MCA. Roundstone was placed at the prerelease facility, from which he was released on furlough, with a scheduled return date of October 4, 2007 unless further developments negated the requirement to return. On furlough, Roundstone remained in the legal custody of DOC. Section 46-23-215(3), MCA (While on furlough, the prisoner remains in the legal custody of the department and is subject to all other conditions recited by the hearing panel.). ¶ 23 Roundstone was placed at MSP and the prerelease center, then given furlough, only by virtue of having been convicted of the assault charge. Thus, under the broader language enacted in 1997, Roundstone was place[d] in the legal custody of . . . the state as a result of a conviction for an offense. Section 45-7-306(1)(a)(i), MCA. Roundstone remained in official detention while on furlough from the prerelease center and, therefore, subsection (i) of § 45-7-306(1)(a), MCA, is satisfied and he is guilty of escape. This conclusion is consistent with the Legislature's intent in amending the escape statute in 1997. Mont. Sen. Jud. Comm., Minutes of the Hearing on H. Bill 43, at 6 (House Bill 43 includes any inmate in the custody of the Department or any inmate on furlough.). [7] , [8]