Court Opinion

ID: 9722561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:39:03.327006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:36.905472
License: Public Domain

JOHNSTONE, Justice.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals determining that the trial court erred in dismissing a second-degree escape charge. Discretionary review was granted. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
The, facts in this matter are uncontested. Following Appellant’s indictment for as*271sault and criminal abuse, the Jefferson Circuit Court ordered that he be released on his own recognizance upon the conditions that he be committed to the Jefferson County Department of Corrections pending trial and participate in the Home Incarceration Program until his August 29, 2001 trial date. His participation in the program required that he wear an electronic monitoring device and that he leave his home only to go to work. In July of 2001, Appellant failed to report on time to work. This failure prompted the supervising officer to request that Appellant report to the program’s office; Appellant did not appear. For several weeks he could not be located and was subsequently indicted for escape in the second degree.
Appellant filed a pretrial motion seeking to dismiss the charge of escape in the second degree. The trial court granted the motion, reasoning that a defendant being held on home incarceration prior to trial was not in custody because such restraint was incidental to bail, an exception to the escape statute. The Commonwealth appealed the dismissal of the charge. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that Appellant was in “custody” within the meaning of Kentucky’s escape statutes and therefore could be charged. Appellant sought discretionary review with this Court, which was granted.
The sole issue before us is whether a conviction for escape may arise from a violation of home incarceration that was imposed as a condition of pretrial release. We conclude that it may.
This issue is one of statutory interpretation, specifically whether Appellant’s placement on home incarceration as a condition of pretrial release fits the definition of “custody” within the meaning of KRS 520.010(2). Pursuant to KRS 520.030, a person is guilty of escape in the second degree when he “escapes from a detention facility or, being charged with or convicted of a felony, he escapes from custody.” KRS 520.010(2) defines “custody” for purposes of KRS Chapter 520 as “restraint by a public servant pursuant to a lawful arrest, detention, or an order of court for law enforcement purposes, but does not include supervision of probation or parole or constraint incidental to release on bail.”
Appellant urges that his participation in the home incarceration program was a “constraint incidental to release on bail,” thereby excepting him from the escape statute. This argument is necessarily predicated on a finding that Appellant was actually released on bail; he was not. No bail was ever set or paid in this case. Rather, Appellant was released to the home incarceration program instead of being released on bail. A distinction exists between a person released on bail versus other forms of pretrial release, and it is patently evident that the General Assembly intended this distinction. KRS 27A.360(1) requires a trial court to include in its disposition of a case whether a defendant is being released “on bail or pretrial release” (emphasis added). Moreover, KRS 431.517 speaks directly to the issue at bar, while also emphasizing that the General Assembly intended that a distinction exists between release on bail versus other forms of pretrial release. KRS 431.517 provides:
Home incarceration may be ordered as a form of pretrial release, subject to the conditions imposed by the provisions of KRS 532.200 to 532.250.
KRS 532.220(2), in turn, provides that violation of the terms of home incarceration may subject “the home incarceree to prosecution under KRS 520.030 (escape).” Such penalties are not available to a defendant who has violated the conditions of his release on bail. Rather, a defendant acting in violation of the terms of his release *272on bail-is subject to having his bail bond forfeited. RCr 4.42(1). Therefore, we cannot conclude that Appellant had been released on bail.
In reaching the same conclusion, the Court of Appeals noted that it would be simply illogical to consider Appellant’s home incarceration as some form of “constraint incidental to release on bail.” The restraint and restrictions placed on Appellant as terms of his pretrial release were far more intense and comprehensive than the “incidental” constraint involved in a release on bail. Typical forms of constraint that are incidental to release on bail might include restrictions on travel, restrictions on place of dwelling, or perhaps a restriction on association with certain persons. Here, Appellant was ordered to wear an electronic monitoring device at all times, was not permitted to leave the home except to travel to and from work, and was required to report to the program’s offices upon request. These restrictions were certainly not “incidental” to a release on bail; rather these restrictions constituted the substantive terms of Appellant’s pretrial release on his own recognizance subject to home incarceration.
Finally, we reiterate our holding in Stroud v. Commonwealth, that a “[violation of the Home Incarceration Program could result in a second-degree escape.” 922 S.W.2d 382, 384 (Ky.1996). Appellant argues that Stroud is inapplicable because it does not specifically state whether the defendant was participating in the home incarceration program pursuant to terms of a pretrial release order or as part of a sentence. We find this distinction to be of no consequence, as the Court’s underlying reasoning is relevant to the present matter: “a narrow technical reading of the term ‘custody’ is not appropriate for the purposes of determining escape.” Id. at 384.
For these reasons, the trial court erred in dismissing the escape charge. Because Appellant’s home incarceration was not a constraint incidental to release on bail, his behavior constituted an escape from custody as defined by KRS 520.030. The case is remanded to the Jefferson Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
COOPER, GRAVES, and WINTERSHEIMER, JJ., concur.
KELLER, J., dissents by separate opinion, with LAMBERT, C.J., and SCOTT, J., joining that dissent.