State v. Yallup, s. 3175-III-6
| Decision Date | 20 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | 3177-III-2 and 3178-III-1,3176-III-4,Nos. 3175-III-6,s. 3175-III-6 |
| Citation | 608 P.2d 651,25 Wn.App. 603 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Dixon Mike YALLUP, Glen L. Dixon, and Garcia Dean Wettenbone, Appellants. |
Kip B. Kendrick, Gavin, Robinson, Kendrick, Redman & Mays, Yakima, for appellants.
Jeffrey C. Sullivan, Pros. Atty., John C. Monter, Deputy Pros. Atty., Yakima, for respondent.
The defendants, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Yallup, and Mr. Wettenbone, appeal their separate convictions for first-degree escape.
Prior to 1977, each of the defendants was convicted of a felony. 1 Each defendant was given a deferred sentence, with probation. In 1978, the State charged each defendant with violating the conditions of their probation. Each defendant was then ordered to "reside and participate in the Yakima Work/Training Release Program until further order of the court, and follow all rules and guidelines of that facility."
On August 7, 1978, each of the defendants signed out of the work release facility listing their respective destinations and estimated times of return. Instead of reporting to work however, the defendants elected to go swimming. The time "got away from them" and they found themselves without transportation back to the Yakima facility. Thinking that they were "already in trouble" the defendants made no effort to return to the facility or advise the staff of their whereabouts. The defendants were apprehended in downtown Yakima two days later and were subsequently convicted of first-degree escape. 2
On appeal, the defendants contend the Yakima Work/Training Release Program is not a "detention facility" within the meaning of the first-degree escape statute.
Under RCW 9A.76.110(1), a person is guilty of escape in the first degree if, being detained pursuant to a conviction of a felony, he escapes from custody or a detention facility. RCW 9A.76.010(2) defines "detention facility" in pertinent part, as:
any place used for the confinement of a person (a) arrested for, charged with or convicted of an offense, . . . or (d) otherwise confined pursuant to an order of a court, . . . or (e) in any work release, furlough, or other such facility or program;
(Italics ours.)
The defendants argue that the Yakima facility has no statutory basis as a detention facility because the terms "work release" and "furlough" as defined by RCW 9A.76.010(2)(e) are by statute applicable only to prisoners under RCW 72.65 and 72.66, et seq. 3 Since the Yakima facility is designed for the detention of probationers, it is argued, the defendants cannot be said to have escaped from a "detention facility." In relation to construing such statutes, State v. Brown, 8 Wash.App. 639, 643, 509 P.2d 77, 79 (1973), said:
Penal statutes are to be strictly construed, to the end that activities not intended to be included within the ambit of the statute shall not be prosecuted. This does not mean however, that a forced, narrow, or over-strict instruction should be applied to defeat the obvious intent of the legislature. State v. Rinkes, 49 Wash.2d 664, 306 P.2d 205 (1957). It is the function of the court to adopt a construction of the statute that is reasonable and in furtherance of the obvious purpose for which it was enacted.
Under RCW 9A.76.010(2)(e), a detention facility may include "any work release, furlough, or other such facility or program." (Italics ours.) Here, the Yakima Work/Training Release Program was the product of the combined efforts of the Department of Social & Health Services and Yakima County. Although limited to probationers, it was established under the guidelines of the work release statute. RCW 72.65. The residents of this facility are subject to 24-hour supervision, and the rules specifically prohibit escape. 4 Guided by the general rules of statutory construction, the Yakima facility comes within the definition of a "detention facility." Additionally, a detention facility includes confinement pursuant to an order of a court. RCW 9A.76.010(2)(d). The defendants were ordered to reside at the Yakima facility pursuant to a court order, following modification of the terms of their original sentences.
The defendants raise additional assignments of error, but fail to cite any relevant authority in support of their arguments. Assignments of error...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sanchez
... ... only be where he is not supposed to be in order to have ... escaped ... In ... State v. Yallup, 25 Wn.App. 603, 608 P.2d 651 ... (1980), two defendants signed out of a work release facility ... and failed to return. We affirmed ... ...
-
Yamauchi v. Employment Sec. Dept.
...this contention. Such an assignment need not be considered by this court unless it is well taken on its face. State v. Yallup, 25 Wash.App. 603, 606-07, 608 P.2d 651 (1980). The contention is not well taken on its face since she is asking this court to pay her attorney before a final determ......
-
Petition of Little
...Furthermore, RCW 9.31.090 has not been construed as the exclusive criminal penalty for work release escapees. In State v. Yallup, 25 Wash.App. 603, 608 P.2d 651 (1980), the Court of Appeals held work releasees could be prosecuted for the felony of escape, as provided in RCW 9A.76. If petiti......
-
State v. Danforth
...programs as well as prisons, since the definition of a detention includes a work release facility. RCW 9A.76.010. State v. Yallup, 25 Wash.App. 603, 606, 608 P.2d 651 (1980). RCW 72.65.070, on the other hand, deals specifically with escape from work release. RCW 72.65.070, as the more speci......