Webb v. State

• Decision Date: 28 April 1987
• Docket Number: 3 Div. 329
• Citation: Webb v. State, 539 So.2d 343 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987)
• Parties: Donnie WEBB v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 343

539 So.2d 343

Donnie WEBB v. STATE.

3 Div. 329.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 28, 1987.

Rehearing Denied June 9, 1987.

Certiorari Quashed March 4, 1988

Alabama Supreme Court 86--1208.

On Return to Remand Dec. 30, 1988.

M. Wayne Sabel of Argo, Enslen, Holloway & Sabel, Montgomery, for appellant.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Jean Williams Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

BOWEN, Presiding Judge.

Donnie Webb was convicted for escape in the first degree and was sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual felony offender. Eleven issues are raised on this appeal of that conviction.

I

Webb argues that the statutory scheme under which he was indicted and convicted "violates the constitutional assurances of proportionate penalties, due process and equal protection of the law" because it "creates an impermissible classification of offenders and is unduly vague and ambiguous." This is an issue of first impression in this State.

In Alexander v. State, 475 So.2d 625 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), reversed on other grounds, Ex parte Alexander, 475 So.2d 628 (Ala.1985), this court held that a state inmate who fails to return from work release is guilty of the felony of escape in the first degree under § 13A-10-31, Code of Alabama (1975). However, a county inmate or a state inmate in county custody who fails to return from work release is guilty only of a misdemeanor under § 14-8-42. Alabama's new criminal code repealed § 14-8-8, which made it a misdemeanor for a state inmate, not in county custody, to fail to return from work release. Alexander, 475 So.2d at 627; Allen v. State, 481 So.2d 418 (Ala.Cr.App.1985); Miller v. State, 349 So.2d 129, 131 (Ala.Cr.App.1977). Webb correctly argues that if he had been a state inmate in county custody or a county inmate and had failed to return from work release he would have been guilty of only a misdemeanor.

"Generally, any law with respect to the punishment to be given must operate equally on every citizen or inhabitant of the state, and a statute is void as a denial of equal protection of the laws which prescribes a different punishment or different degrees of punishment for the same acts committed under the same circumstances by persons in like situations." Opinion of the Justices No. 293, 410 So.2d 60, 61 (Ala.1982). "The general rule is that '[e]qual protection of the laws is not denied by a statute prescribing the punishment to be inflicted on a person convicted of crime, unless it prescribes different punishments for the same acts committed under the same circumstances by persons in like situations.' " State v. Spurlock, 393 So.2d 1052, 1057 (Ala.Cr.App.1981). However,

"[t]he Equal Protection Clause does not mean that a state may not draw lines that treat one class of individuals differently from the others. The test is whether the difference in treatment is an invidious discrimination. ... Classification of subjects in a statute is not arbitrary and invalid if based on some difference which bears a reasonable and just relation to the attempted classification." Spurlock, 393 So.2d at 1056. (Citation omitted.)

Our review convinces us that the different punishments established for escape from a state work release facility and escape from a county work release center are based on a reasonable classification scheme, further a proper governmental purpose, and are rationally related to that purpose.

Rejecting a similar equal protection argument in In re Sims, 117 Cal.App.3d 309, 172 Cal.Rptr. 608 (1981), the California Court of Appeals observed:

"The concept of equal protection of the laws compels recognition of the proposition that persons similarly situated receive similar treatment.... It is the prerogative of the Legislature to recognize degrees of culpability and to penalize accordingly ..., which is what the Legislature has done here, where it has made only crimes committed while confined in or subject to reimprisonment for escape from state prison subject to full consecutive terms." 117 Cal.App.3d at 314, 172 Cal.Rptr. 608 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

In People v. Agron, 91 Misc.2d 1091, 399 N.Y.S.2d 383 (N.Y.Co.Ct.1977), the court found no denial of equal protection in a New York statute which penalized the escape of a state prisoner from a state temporary release center as a felony, while another statutory provision punished the escape of a prisoner from a local temporary release center as a misdemeanor:

"From the outset, the legislature distinguished between state prisoners and others, in enacting these statutes....

"The presence of this additional element--one's confinement in a state institution--is a legislative recognition that, generally speaking, state facilities maintain the more serious offenders, whose unauthorized departure from confinement may be said to pose a greater risk to the community. There is nothing irrational about that scheme, nor is its classification vulnerable to the claim that in certain cases, the same class D or class E felons would be treated differently, depending on whether he was sentenced to (and absconded from) a state or local facility release program." 399 N.Y.S.2d at 385.

In finding no equal protection violation, both the New York and the California courts recognized the fact that escapees from state facilities and escapees from local facilities are not "similarly situated" because normally the state convict has, prior to his escape, been found guilty of a more serious underlying offense. "The law has long recognized a relation between punishment for breach of prison and the offense for which the prisoner is held, and it has more severely punished prison breaking by one undergoing imprisonment for grievous crime than if done by one held for a lesser offense." Pennsylvania ex rel. Sullivan v. Ashe, 302 U.S. 51, 53, 58 S.Ct. 59, 60, 82 L.Ed. 43, 45 (1937). Thus, insofar as escape statutes impose different punishments based upon the classification of the convicts' prior offenses, they do not deny equal protection of the laws. Ashe, supra; Alex v. State, 484 P.2d 677 (Alaska 1971); People v. McKnight, 626 P.2d 678 (Colo. 1981); Clark v. State, 284 Md. 260, 396 A.2d 243, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 858, 100 S.Ct. 119, 62 L.Ed.2d 77 (1979).

"[A] classification made by a Legislature is presumed to be reasonable in the absence of clear and convincing indications to the contrary, and the person who assails it has the burden of showing that it does not rest upon any reasonable basis, but is essentially arbitrary." Clark v. State, 396 A.2d at 247. The Alabama legislature has classified "county inmates" and "state inmates" for purposes of work release as follows:

"(1) COUNTY INMATE: A person convicted of a crime and sentenced to a term of confinement of one year's duration or less.

"STATE INMATE: A person convicted of a crime and sentenced to a term of confinement of more than one year's duration."

Ala. Code (1975), § 14-8-30. Compare Ala. Code §§ 13A-1-2(3) (offense punishable by less than one year's imprisonment is a misdemeanor) and 13A-1-2(4) (offense punished by more than one year's imprisonment is a felony). By definition, therefore, a county inmate is a convicted misdemeanant and a state inmate, regardless of the location of his work release facility, is a convicted felon.

Although the Alabama legislature has not defined "state inmates in county custody," it has authorized the Board of Corrections to promulgate rules concerning which state inmates may participate in county work release programs, Ala. Code (1975), § 14-8-31(c), and it has provided that only those state inmates "approved by" the Board of Corrections may be held in county custody. See Ala. Code (1975), § 14-8-33(b).

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the Board of Corrections, to whom the legislature properly delegated the authority to classify "state inmates in county custody," transfers only low risk, non-dangerous felons to county custody. "When the classification in ... a law [assailed on equal protection grounds] is called in question, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, the existence of that state of facts at the time the law was enacted must be assumed." Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 78-79, 31 S.Ct. 337, 340, 55 L.Ed. 369 (1911). Assuming, then, that the Board of Corrections exercises its discretion to transfer to county custody only those state inmates who present the least threat to society, the differences in punishment for the crimes of escape from a work release center rest on a reasonable basis and cannot be said to be purely arbitrary. Lindsley, id., at 79, 31 S.Ct. at 340; Spurlock, 393 So.2d at 1056. We find nothing arbitrary in the legislature's determination that a dangerous felon who fails to return to his work release center is guilty of a felony, while a misdemeanant or a non-dangerous felon who absconds from work release is guilty only of a misdemeanor. As the Colorado Supreme Court observed:

"We believe that there are a number of rational considerations which justify the classification scheme of our escape statute. These considerations include the reasonable belief on the part of the legislature that persons convicted of more grievous crimes present a greater threat to society requiring that a greater effort be made to deter their escape, and that persons convicted of more grievous crimes are generally sentenced to longer prison terms, increasing their motive to escape and requiring greater penalties to help deter such escapes."

People v. McKnight, 626 P.2d at 684 (Colo. 1981). To the extent that the Board of Corrections transfers state inmates to county facilities in order to relieve overcrowding at state facilities, there is a proper exercise of delegated authority and no denial of equal protection. See Clark v. State, 284 Md. 260, 396 A.2d 243, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 858, 100 S.Ct. 119, 62 L.Ed.2d 77 (19...