Milano v. Warden, Connecticut Correctional Inst.

• Decision Date: 19 March 1974
• Citation: 166 Conn. 178,348 A.2d 590
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Joseph V. MILANO v. WARDEN, CONNECTICUT CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Somers, et al.

Page 590

348 A.2d 590

166 Conn. 178

Joseph V. MILANO v. WARDEN, CONNECTICUT CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Somers, et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

March 19, 1974.

Bernard D. Gaffney, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, was John D. LaBelle, State's Atty., for appellants (defendants).

Richard S. Cramer (Civil Legal Asst. to Prisoners), Hartford, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before HOUSE, C.J., and SHAPIRO, LOISELLE, MacDONALD and BOGDANSKI, JJ.

SHAPIRO, Associate Justice.

As an inmate at the Connecticut Correctional Institution at Enfield, the plaintiff, Joseph V. Milano, and other inmates were assigned to a work detail at the residence of the warden of the institution. While working about the residence the plaintiff escaped. He was apprehended and pleaded guilty to a violation of General Statutes § 53-155 and was sentenced. He brought a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus, contending that his escape was in violation of § 53-158, a lesser offense. The court rendered judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants, the warden of the Correctional Institution at Somers and the commissioner of corrections, filed a petition with the trial court seeking certification for appeal from the court's judgment. Upon the granting of their petition, the defendants have appealed to this court.

The undisputed facts, as found by the court, are as follows: The plaintiff was sentenced on January 15, 1971, in the Superior Court in Fairfield County to a term of imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than four years to the Connecticut Correctional Institution at Somers. He was subsequently transferred to the former Osborn division at Enfield. ¹ On May 27, 1971, while legally confined to the institution at Enfield, the plaintiff and six other inmates were assigned to a lawn maintenance work detail at the residence of the warden. The plaintiff and the other inmates were taken by truck from the institution to the warden's residence and at all times were in the custody of a corrections officer. The residence is about one-quarter of a mile from the last security gate at the institution at Enfield and is located on Walker Drive, a private road which can be approached only from the Enfield institution by a public highway. The residence is not surrounded by a fence and is a part of the prison compound which is the property comprising the total complex of the institutions at Somers and Enfield. There are five residences located on Walker Drive, each owned by the state of Connecticut and occupied by personnel employed at the institutions. Security gates enclose the Correctional Institutions at Somers and Enfield but not the warden's residence. The plaintiff, while on a work detail at the warden's residence, escaped. The corrections officer who had custody of the plaintiff and the other inmates, at the time of the escape, was unarmed. Later, the plaintiff was apprehended and on May 30, 1972, was presented before the Superior Court on an information charging him with escape from the Connecticut Correctional Institution at Somers in violation of § 53-155. ² The plaintiff, represented by a public defender, discussed with him prior to his plea, the offense with which he was charged, violation of § 53-155, and they also discussed § 53-158. ³ The petitioner was informed by his public defender that § 53-155 covered all types of escape, both inside and outside a correctional institution. The plaintiff saw the public defender for about ten minutes on May 30, 1972, before he pleaded guilty in the Superior Court in Hartford County to § 53-155. On June 1, 1972, the plaintiff was sentenced to a term of not less than eighteen months nor more than five years, to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed in Fairfield County. On June 1, 1972, the petitioner was delivered to the warden of the Connecticut Correctional Institution, Somers.

From the foregoing facts the court concluded that the plaintiff, at the time of his escape was outside the institution at Enfield; that his escape falls within the purview of § 53-158, 'Escape while at work,' and not § 53-155, 'Escape from correctional institution'; and that his plea of guilty was constitutionally invalid because it was not entered intelligently and with an understanding of the alternative courses of action open to him.

The defendants make the claim that § 53-158 applies only to an inmate of a community correctional center, formerly known as a jail, and not to an inmate of the Connecticut correctional institutions; that the plaintiff, at the time of his escape, was not outside the Connecticut Correctional Institution; and that § 53-155 is the statute which is legally applicable to the facts as they relate to the plaintiff's escape.

Based upon the briefs presented in this appeal and the arguments made before this court, the sole issue to be determined is which statute, § 53-155 or § 53-158, has proper application under the facts as found by the trial court. At the outset, this requires a summary of the legislative history of both statutes. ⁴

Section 53-155 had its genesis in the Public Acts of 1878 when the General Assembly approved 'An act to punish the escape of convicts from state prison.' This statute provided, in part, as follows: 'Every person legally confined in the state prison, who shall escape from said prison, or attempt to escape from said prison, shall be imprisoned in said prison not more than ten years.' Section 1489 of the Revision of 1888 used almost identical language; the Revisions of 1902, § 1264; of 1918, § 6321; and of 1930, § 6173 (changing 'Every person' to 'Any person') followed the same language. The Revision of 1949, § 8492, stated, in part: 'Any person legally confined in the State Prison, who shall escape or attempt to escape from said prison or from any subdivision thereof, or from any other institution to which he has been transferred from said prison, or from the custody of any person in whose charge he has been placed by the warden of said prison, shall be imprisoned in said prison not more than ten years.' General Statutes, Revision of 1958, § 53-155, used that language except for a minor change. In 1961, under Public Act No. 312, § 4, the General Assembly repealed § 53-155 and substituted the following language: 'Any person legally confined in any penal or correctional institution who escapes or attempts to escape from such institution or from any other institution to which he has been transferred from such institution or from the custody of any person in whose charge he has been placed by the warden or superintendent of such institution shall be imprisoned not more than ten years.' In 1965, under Public Act 556, § 3, the first portion of § 53-155 was amended to read as follows: 'Any person legally confined in any (penal or) correctional institution, except The Connecticut State Farm for Women, who escapes . . ..' Section 53-155, so amended, continued until its repeal became effective October 1, 1971.

Section 53-158 had its origin in 1884 (Public Acts 1884, c. 55) when the General Assembly approved 'An act relating to escapes from jails and workhouses.' This provided as follows: 'Every person confined in any county jail or workhouse who shall, while employed at labor without such jail or workhouse, escape, or attempt to escape, from the custody of any keeper, shall be fined and imprisoned for an amount or term not greater than the original sentence for which he was so confined at the time of his escape.' Section 1492 of the Revision of 1888 contained identical language, as did the Revisions of 1902, § 1267, and of 1918, § 6324. The Revision of 1930, § 6176, contained the same language except for a change in the penalty provision. The Revision of 1949, § 8495, adopted a change brought on by § 1430i of the 1947 Supplement and read: 'Any person legally confined in any county jail or workhouse who shall, while employed at labor without such jail or workhouse or on any county property, escape or attempt to escape from the custody of any keeper shall be imprisoned for not more than three years.' The Revision of 1958, § 53-158, basically followed the above language. In 1961, Public Act No. 312, § 7, repealed § 53-158 and the following language was substituted: 'Any person legally confined in any (penal or) correctional institution who, while employed at labor without such institution, escapes or attempts to escape from the custody of any (keeper) shall be imprisoned not more than three years.' Later in the 1961 session, the General Assembly, under Public Act No. 517, § 113, repealed § 53-158, and substituted the following which read, in part: 'Any person legally confined in any county jail or workhouse who, while employed at labor without such jail or workhouse or on any state property, escapes . . ..' Still later in the same session, the General Assembly adopted Public Act No. 580, § 15, which again repealed § 53-158 and substituted the following: 'Any person legally confined in any jail who, while employed at labor without such jail, escapes or attempts to escape from the jail officer shall be imprisoned for not more than three years.' In 1965, by Public Act No. 556, § 5, § 53-158 was again repealed and there was substituted the following, stating, in part: 'Any person legally confined in any penal or correctional institution except The Connecticut State Farm for Women who, while employed at labor without such institution, escapes or attempts to escape from the custody of any jail officer . . ..' The 1967 session of the General Assembly adopted Public Act No. 152, which states in § 9: 'The definition of 'penal institutions' in section 1-1 of the general statutes is repealed. Wherever the term 'penal institutions' appears in the general statutes, it shall be construed to mean correctional institutions, as defined in section 10 of this act.' Section 10 states, in part: "Correctional institutions' means the State Prison, the State Prison...