Cork v. State, CR-91-156

Decision Date21 August 1992
Docket NumberCR-91-156
Citation603 So.2d 1127
PartiesRobert Clyde CORK v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Harry Lyon, Pelham, for appellant.

James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Jean Williams Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

MONTIEL, Judge.

Robert Clyde Cork filed a Rule 32, A.R.Cr.P., petition with the Shelby Circuit Court attacking his guilty plea conviction for escape in the second degree. In his petition, the appellant alleged 1) that his guilty plea was induced by an unfilled promise that he would get probation in two years; 2) that his counsel was ineffective because counsel told him that part of the plea agreement was that he would serve only two years and then be put on probation; and 3) that the trial court was without jurisdiction to render judgment or impose sentence.

The transcript of the guilty plea proceeding is included in the record. During the guilty plea proceedings, the appellant was asked, "Has anyone promised you a lighter sentence, particular sentence or probation to get you to say that you are guilty today?" The appellant replied, "No, sir." Clearly, the first and second allegations are without merit.

The appellant was indicted for the offense of escape in the first degree, in violation of § 13A-10-31, Code of Alabama 1975. He pleaded guilty to the offense of escape in the second degree, in violation of § 13A-10-32, Code of Alabama 1975. Escape in the second degree is a Class C felony. The appellant contends that the trial court was without jurisdiction to render judgment or impose sentence because he should have been indicted for and convicted of the willful failure of an inmate to remain within the extended limits of his confinement or to return to the place of confinement within the time prescribed, in violation of § 14-8-42, Code of Alabama 1975, a misdemeanor offense. The appellant argues that because he was a state inmate on work release in county custody at the time of his escape, he was guilty only of the misdemeanor offense defined in § 14-8-42.

Section 14-8-42, Code of Alabama 1975, reads as follows:

"The willful failure of an inmate to remain within the extended limits of his confinement or to return to the place of confinement within the time prescribed shall be deemed an escape from a state penal institution in the case of a state inmate and an escape from the custody of the sheriff in the case of a county inmate and shall be punishable accordingly."

Section 14-8-43, Code of Alabama 1975, states, "Anyone violating any of the provisions of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." This court has consistently held that a "county inmate or a state inmate in county custody who fails to return from work release is guilty of only a misdemeanor." Webb v. State, 539 So.2d 343, 345 (Ala.Crim.App.1987) (emphasis added). See also Moncrief v. State, 551 So.2d 1175 (Ala.Crim.App.1989); Alexander v. State, 475 So.2d 625 (Ala.Crim.App.1984), ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Ex parte Jones
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 16 Septiembre 2022
    ... Ex parte Whitney Owens Jones In re: Whitney Owens Jones v. State of Alabama No. 1210194 Supreme Court of Alabama September 16, 2022 ...           ... penalty for a violation of § 14-8-42. See , ... e.g. , Cork v. State , 603 So.2d 1127, 1128 ... (Ala.Crim.App.1992). Jones argues that, because she was ... ...
  • Conner v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 28 Junio 2002
    ...inmate or a state inmate in county custody who fails to return from work release is guilty of only a misdemeanor.'" Cork v. State, 603 So.2d 1127, 1128 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), quoting Webb v. State, 539 So.2d 343, 345 (Ala.Crim.App.1987)(some emphasis in Cork; some emphasis added). See also Mo......
  • Shoulders v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 23 Mayo 1997
    ...551 So.2d 1175 (Ala.Crim.App.1989); Alexander v. State, 475 So.2d 625 (Ala.Crim.App.1984), rev'd on other grounds." Cork v. State, 603 So.2d 1127, 1128 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). (Some emphasis added; some emphasis in The record reflects that the appellant filed his Rule 32 petition in the Limest......
  • Jones v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 23 Abril 2021
    ...that she left the work-release program and that she did not return to the work-release barracks. She relies on Cork v. State, 603 So. 2d 1127 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992), and cases it cites holding that " ' a county inmate or a state inmate in county custody who fails to return from work release......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT