Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-2551 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH V. ROBERT A. CARPER, II IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2002-2551 CRIMINAL IN RE: PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BEFORE GUIDO, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT The defendant has been charged with escape and flight to avoid apprehension in violation of Sections 5121(a) and 5126 of the crimes code.~ He has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he alleges that the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing was insufficient to establish a prima facie case on either charge.2 We will grant the petition as it relates to the charge of flight to avoid apprehension. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The defendant was a participant in the work release program while an inmate at the Cumberland County Prison. He worked at the Weis Market in Carlisle from 6:30 a.m. until 2:30 p.m. He was entitled to a one half hour break for lunch, from approximately 11:45 a.m. until 12:15 p.m. On November 8, 2002, at about 12:15 p.m., he left the job site without authorization.3 He was missing for more than two hours.4 1 18 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 5121(a) and 5126. 2 The parties have agreed that we should decide this case on the basis of the preliminary hearing transcript which has been admitted into evidence. 3 A co-employee saw him get into a white car driven by an umdentified man. 4 His employer called the prison at about 1:15 p.m. to report that he had left the job site. NO. 2002-2551 CRIMINAL When he eventually came back to the Weiss Market, he was drunk. Since it was quitting time, he clocked out and returned to the prison. He arrived back at the prison well within his expected return time. DISCUSSION Section 5121(a) of the Crimes Code defines the crime of escape as follows: A person commits an offense if he unlawfully removes himself from official detention or fails to return to official detention following temporary leave granted for a specific purpose or limited period. 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 5121 (a). "(F)or purposes of the escape statute, 'official detention' includes participation in a prison work release program." Commonwealth v. Hall, 402 Pa. Super. 23, 25 585 A.2d 1117, 1118 (1991). Defendant contends that the Superior Court's decisions in Hall, supra and Commonwealth v. Edwards, 407 Pa. Super. 178, 595 A.2d 183 (1991) require the dismissal of the escape charge. We disagree. The Hall and Edwards cases dealt with prisoners who deviated from their prescribed travel routes on the way to or from their approved work location. In Hall, the defendant stopped at his home for about an hour on the way to work. He then went to work and returned to the prison on time. In Edwards, the defendant stopped at a friend's house on the way back from work, drank a small amount of alcohol, and returned to the prison about seven minutes late. In each case the Superior Court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction under the escape statute. As each Court noted: The reasonable definition of unlawful removal in subsection (a) of the escape statute does not encompass a situation where a prisoner does not substantially deviate from a prescribed travel route, goes to work and returns to official custody as prescribed by his work release program. NO. 2002-2551 CRIMINAL Commonwealth v. Hall, 585 A.2d at 1119, Commonwealth v. Edwards, 595 A.2d at 184. (emphasis added). The defendant's actions in the instant case can be distinguished from those in Hall and Edwards. This case does not involve an insubstantial "deviation from a prescribed travel route" but rather involves the unauthorized leaving of his employment for a substantial period of time. If the work release program is "official detention" for purposes of the escape statute, his absconding from the job site without authorization for more than two hours to get drunk is sufficient to constitute a violation of that statute. The defendant argues that his timely return to the prison establishes that he did not intend to remove himself from official detention. The defendant in Hall made a similar argument. It was his position that: (T)he escape statute applies only to a prisoner in a work release program who fails to return to confinement. As such,.., under § 5121(a) "escape requires flight from confinement sufficient to justify the conclusion that the inmate was not going to return as directed, but, rather, was seeking to regain his freedom." (Appellant's brief, at 9.) 585 A.2d at 1119. The Superior Court commented that it was not "prepared to read the statute as broadly" as the defendant requested. Id. Therefore, the fact that this defendant returned to prison on time is of no moment. What is important is that he removed himself from official detention, i.e. his job, for a substantial period of time.5 Therefore, we will deny the defendant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus in connection with the escape charge. The charge of "flight to avoid apprehension" is another matter entirely. The statute defines the offense as follows: 5 We note that his absence from the job was long enough to set in motion the efforts for his reapprehension. NO. 2002-2551 CRIMINAL A person who willfully conceals himself or moves or travels within or outside the Commonwealth with the intent to avoid apprehension, trial or punishment commits a felony of the third degree when the crime which he has been charged with or has been convicted of is a felony and commits a misdemeanor of the second degree when the crime which he has been charged with or has been convicted of is a misdemeanor. 18 Pa. C.S.A. {} 5126. As the Superior Court noted in distinguishing between this crime and escape: The essence of "escape" is to remove oneself from official detention while "flight to avoid apprehension" is to avoid submitting to official detention or criminal prosecution. Commonwealth v. Colon, 719 A.2d 1099, 1100, n.2 (Pa. Super. 1998). Under the facts of this case, there is no evidence that the defendant's actions were in any way designed to avoid apprehension, trial or punishment. He voluntarily returned both to work and to prison. Therefore, we will enter the order that follows. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of JANUARY, 2003, the Defendant's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is granted as to the charge of flight to avoid apprehension, 18 Pa. C.S.A.{} 5126 and said charge is DISMISSED. As to the charge of escape, 18 Pa. C.S.A. {} 5121(a), it is DENIED. By the Court, District Attorney Public Defender /s/Edward E. Guido Edward E. Guido, J. NO. 2002-2551 CRIMINAL :sld