Court Opinion

ID: 9722189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:19:52.69907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:31.681111
License: Public Domain

Quinn, P. J.
Defendant’s nonjury trial resulted in his conviction of prison escape, MCLA 750.193; MSA 28.390, for which he received an additional sentence of six months added to his minimum and maximum sentence. He appeals, contending the trial judge erred by applying an incorrect legal standard in finding escape on this record; that the proof failed to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt standard”; and that the sentence subjects him to double punishment.
The key to a solution of this appeal lies in the meaning of "escape” as contained in MCLA 750.193, supra. We have been cited to no case factually identical to this case nor has independent research disclosed such authority. The record here establishes beyond question that defendant was where he had no right to be without permission. It is not clear whether this was within or without the area owned by the prison.
We recognize that People v Richards, 247 Mich 608; 226 NW 651 (1929), is not factually the case at bar. However, we believe the definition of "escape” therein contained is the most appropriate for maintenance of proper authority and discipline by the prison officials. That definition is "he escapes if he removes himself from the imposed *483restraint over his person and volition”, and we adopt it.
This conclusion disposes of the second issue which is based on a different concept of escape. The third issue does not merit discussion.
Affirmed.
J. H. Gillis, J., concurred.