State v. Howard
| Decision Date | 03 March 1969 |
| Citation | 20 Ohio App.2d 347,254 N.E.2d 390 |
| Parties | , 49 O.O.2d 487 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. HOWARD, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
A sentence imposed and being served for escape from confinement is not affected by the validity of the sentence being served at the time of the escape.
Reynold C. Hoefflin, Pros. Atty., for appellee.
James D. Davis and James W. Carpenter, Columbus, for appellant.
The defendant, Russell Howard, was tried by jury in the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County and found guilty of violating Section 2901.11, Revised Code, which provides that 'no person shall escape * * * from any confinement or restraint imposed as a result of a criminal * * * proceeding.' From the judgment and sentence thereafter entered by the trial court, Howard has appealed to this court on questions of law.
Although the validity of the judgment has been challenged on three separate grounds, we find no merit in either the second or third assignments of error. However, the first specification of error has produced some difficulty in the light of the pronouncement of this court in the case of State v. Ferguson (1955), 100 Ohio App. 191, 135 N.E.2d 884. In epitomized form, the Ferguson case stands for the proposition that an indictment for escape cannot be predicated upon unlawful confinement, and the defendant in the present case relies principally upon that case to support his initial contention that 'the evidence in the record is insufficient to show that the defendant was legally confined on the day he allegedly escaped.'
As a result of rules promulgated by the United States Supreme Court, the criminal law has experienced drastic change since the decision of this court in the Ferguson case, and in view of the large number of inmates clamoring for release from Ohio penal institutions on constitutional grounds, any express or implied sanction of escape or attempted escape as a device to test the validity of confinement would be an invitation to chaos and confusion. Hence, the case of State v. Ferguson, insofar as it holds that an escape charge must be based upon lawful confinement, is hereby overruled.
In our opinion, the better rule was adopted in the case of Laws v. United States, 10 Cir., 386 F.2d 816, which holds that the sentence imposed for escape from confinement is not affected by the validity of the sentence being served at the time of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hickok
...Mass. 757, 400 N.E.2d 854, 857 n. 2 (1980) and cases cited therein; Collins v. State, 262 A.2d 443 (Me.1970); State v. Howard, 20 Ohio App.2d 347, 254 N.E.2d 390, 391 (1969). Here the defendant was convicted of a felony, first-degree theft. As long as the conviction had not been set aside, ......
-
State v. Jordan, 2008 Ohio 4647 (Ohio App. 9/15/2008)
...but rather, that Jordan knew he was under detention or that he was being reckless in that regard. R.C. 2921.34; State v. Howard (1969), 20 Ohio App.2d 347, 254 N.E.2d 390 (escape conviction is not affected by the validity of the sentence which the defendant was serving at the time of the de......
-
State v. Andrew Downs
... ... appellant was not confined in a detention facility. More ... importantly, insofar as State v. Ferguson held that ... an escape charge must be based upon lawful confinement, the ... Ferguson case was expressly overruled in State ... v. Howard (1969), 20 Ohio App.2d 347 ... Appellant's second assignment of error is not well taken ... III ... Appellant's third assignment of error contends that when ... the "irregularity" defense under R.C. 2921.34(B) is ... ...
- Knoll v. Dudley