Alexander v. State, 8 Div. 166
Decision Date | 23 October 1984 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 166 |
Citation | 475 So.2d 625 |
Parties | Gary ALEXANDER v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Barnes F. Lovelace, Jr., Decatur, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and James B. Prude, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Gary Alexander was indicted and convicted for escape in the first degree in violation of Alabama Code 1975, § 13A-10-31. He was sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual offender. On appeal, Alexander contends that the failure of a work release inmate to return from his place of employment to his place of confinement does not constitute an escape from custody. We disagree.
In 1982, Alexander was in the state penal system serving sentences for three felony convictions at the Decatur Work Release Center. On April 6, 1982, he failed to return to the center from his place of employment.
In Grimes v. State, 402 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Cr.App.1981), this Court held that the failure of an inmate to return from work release does not constitute escape in the first degree under Alabama Code 1975, § 13A-10-31(a)(2), because of the statutory definition of custody found in § 13A-10-30(b)(1).
See also Eady v. State, 369 So.2d 841 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 369 So.2d 843 (Ala.1979).
On reconsideration of the meaning and scope of the statutory definition of "custody", we find that the crime of escape in the first degree is broad enough to cover the facts of this case.
"[W]ork release certainly is official detention." Commonwealth v. Brown, 261 Pa.Super. 240, 396 A.2d 377, 378 (1978).
In Jenkins v. State, 367 So.2d 587, 588-89 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, Ex parte Jenkins, 367 So.2d 590 (Ala.1979), this Court held that a "prisoner on furlough is as much in the legal custody of the institution for purposes of escape as is a prisoner confined within the prison walls."
Although Jenkins was decided under our old general escape statute, Alabama Code 1975, § 13-5-65 (), its principles are applicable to our present statute.
Carr v. State, 406 So.2d 440 (Ala.Cr.App.1981), involved a conviction for escape in the first degree under the same statute as that for which Alexander was prosecuted.
See also State v. Babcock, 226 Kan. 356, 597 P.2d 1117, 1121-22 (1979); State v. Furlong, 110 R.I. 174, 291 A.2d 267 (1972). Although these and other cases all involve statutes of different wording, "the concept is similar and applicable here: work release programs are a form of 'detention for law enforcement purposes.' " Brown, 396 A.2d at 379.
Our present interpretation of custody is consistent with the traditional construction given that term.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Webb v. State
...classification of offenders and is unduly vague and ambiguous." This is an issue of first impression in this State. In Alexander v. State, 475 So.2d 625 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), reversed on other grounds, Ex parte Alexander, 475 So.2d 628 (Ala.1985), this court held that a state inmate who fails ......
-
Ankrom v. State
...jurisprudence, and unless it is adhered to in this instance what was [the crime of escape under our decision in Alexander v. State, 475 So.2d 625 (Ala.Crim.App.1984),] would now [be no crime].“ ‘ “Such a ruling would do violence to our time-honored tradition of trial courts' reliance on jud......
-
Ex parte General Motors Corp.
...jurisprudence, and unless it is adhered to in this instance what was [the crime of escape under our decision in Alexander v. State, 475 So.2d 625 (Ala.Crim.App.1984)] would now [be no "`"Such a ruling would do violence to our time-honored tradition of trial courts' reliance on judicial opin......
-
Ex parte Jones
...from a work-release program, or a similar program, falls within the conduct covered under the escape statutes. See Alexander v. State, 475 So.2d 625 (Ala.Crim.App.1984) (holding that an inmate participating in a state work-release program who failed to return from his place of employment wa......