State v. Roberts, 95-167
| Decision Date | 12 March 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-167,95-167 |
| Citation | 275 Mont. 365,912 P.2d 812 |
| Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Joe ROBERTS, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, In and for the County of Powell; The Honorable James E. Purcell, Judge presiding.
William F. Hooks, State Appellate Defender, Helena, for appellant.
Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General, Carol Schmidt, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Chris Miller, Powell County Attorney, Deer Lodge, for respondent.
Joe Roberts (Roberts) appeals from the judgment entered by the Third Judicial District Court, Powell County, on a jury verdict finding him guilty of the offense of felony escape. We reverse.
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in denying Roberts' motion to dismiss the escape charge.
Roberts was an inmate at the Montana State Prison (MSP) in Deer Lodge, Montana. On January 26, 1994, the Montana Board of Pardons (Board) granted Roberts parole subject to the usual parole conditions and certain special conditions. One of the special conditions was a Board recommendation that Roberts obtain a 10-day furlough to find housing and employment. Roberts subsequently submitted a furlough request/permit form which was approved on February 4, 1994. The furlough program rules required Roberts to meet with parole officer Dave Weaver (Weaver) on specified dates.
Roberts left the MSP on February 7, 1994. He met with Weaver as scheduled on February 8. Weaver went to Roberts' wife's residence on February 10 for another scheduled meeting with Roberts, but Roberts failed to attend the meeting. Weaver left a message for Roberts to contact him; Roberts did not do so. On February 14, 1994, Weaver issued an arrest warrant and notified the MSP of Roberts' escape. Roberts was arrested in Pablo, Montana, on February 17, 1994.
The State of Montana (State) charged Roberts by information with felony escape under § 45-7-306, MCA. The information alleged that, on or about February 10, 1994, Roberts was an "inmate subject to official detention ... temporarily released on work furlough ... [and] removed himself from official detention."
Roberts moved to dismiss the charge. He argued that he was not subject to "official detention" during his furlough, as that term is defined in § 45-7-306(1), MCA, and, therefore, that he could not commit the offense of escape as defined in § 45-7-306(2), MCA. More particularly, he argued that he was a "parole violator" when he failed to report to Weaver and that the statutory definition of "official detention," by its terms, does not include supervision of probation or parole. The State contended that Roberts was being supervised while under a supervised release program, one of the statutory definitions of "official detention."
The District Court determined that Roberts' furlough was approved in order for him to seek employment after he was paroled and, therefore, that he was not yet on parole during the furlough. On that basis, the court denied Roberts' motion. A jury subsequently found Roberts guilty of the charged offense and the District Court sentenced him and entered judgment. Roberts appeals.
Did the District Court err in denying Roberts' motion to dismiss the escape charge?
The District Court's denial of Roberts' motion implicitly concluded that the State could prosecute Roberts for escape pursuant to § 45-7-306(2), MCA, because he was subject to official detention--by virtue of being on a supervised release program--at the time he failed to meet with Weaver. We review a district court's conclusion of law to determine whether it is correct. State v. Mantz (1994), 269 Mont. 135, 137, 887 P.2d 251, 253 (citation omitted).
In interpreting a statute, "the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted or to omit what has been inserted." Section 1-2-101, MCA. The intention of the legislature must be pursued. Section 1-2-102, MCA. If the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, it requires no further interpretation; we will not resort to legislative history or other means of interpretation unless the legislative intent cannot be determined from the plain words of the statute. Clarke v. Massey (1995), 271 Mont. 412, 416, 897 P.2d 1085, 1088 (citation omitted).
Insofar as is relevant here, an escape charge can be maintained only against a person "subject to official detention." Section 45-7-306(2), MCA. The Montana legislature has defined "official detention," in part, as "supervision while under a supervised release program." Section 45-7-306(1), MCA. The State equates the furlough program in which Roberts was participating to the "supervised release program" referenced in § 45-7-306(1), MCA. On that basis, it contends that Roberts was subject to official detention while on furlough and, therefore, that he was properly prosecuted for felony escape. We disagree.
The only "supervised release program" addressed by statute in Montana is codified in §§ 46-23-401 through 46-23-426, MCA. The legislature did not define with any specificity in these statutes the supervised release program it contemplated. Instead, it directed the Department of Corrections to establish the supervised release program and to promulgate administrative rules to implement it. Section 46-23-405, MCA. The legislature did require, however, that prisoners in the supervised release program participate "in a recognized educational, treatment, or training program or work program." Section 46-23-405(2), MCA. Prisoners are eligible for the program 24 months before they are eligible for parole. Section 46-23-411(1), MCA. Applications for the supervised release program are approved or denied by the Board after "a hearing consistent with the procedural rules adopted by it for parole hearings...." Section 46-23-412, MCA. Section 46-23-426, MCA, specifically provides that a prisoner convicted of escape from a supervised release program is punishable pursuant to § 45-7-306, MCA. Not a single reference to "furloughs" is contained in the supervised release program statutes.
The administrative rules establishing and implementing the supervised release program set out the requirements of the program in more detail. A prisoner applying for acceptance into the supervised release...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Roundstone
...“official detention.”A. Official Detention ¶ 16 Roundstone contends dismissal of the escape charge is required under State v. Roberts, 275 Mont. 365, 912 P.2d 812 (1996). The State argues that § 45–7–306, MCA, was substantially amended after Roberts. ¶ 17 Roberts was an inmate at MSP and wa......
-
State v. Ohl
...MCA (1993), from which an inmate could commit felony escape. Nelson , 275 Mont. at 95-96, 910 P.2d at 253. In State v. Roberts , 275 Mont. 365, 369, 912 P.2d 812, 815 (1996), the Court held that a prisoner's failure to return from furlough did not constitute an escape because the furloughed......
-
State v. Chandler, 95-545
...interpretation of the law was correct. State v. Christensen (1994), 265 Mont. 374, 375-76, 877 P.2d 468, 469. In State v. Roberts (1996), 275 Mont. 365, 912 P.2d 812, Roberts had been released from the Montana State Prison into the parole-related furlough program under § 46-23-215(3), MCA. ......