NO. 95-545
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1996
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JAMIE SCOTT CHANDLER,
Defendant and Appellant
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Second Judicial District,
In and for the County of Silver Bow,
The Honorable James E. Purcell, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
William F. Hooks, Appellate Defender, Helena,
Montana
For Respondent:
Honorable Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General;
Sennifer Anders, Assistant Attorney General,
Helena, Montana
Robert M. McCarthy, County Attorney; Brad
Newman, Deputy County Attorney, Butte, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: July 18, 1996
Decided: August 20, 1996
Filed:
Chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the Court.
Jamie Scott Chandler pled guilty before the Second Judicial
District Court, Silver Bow County, to felony escape. He appeals an
issue reserved, concerning the court's denial of his motion to
dismiss on the ground that a prerelease inmate is not subject to
"official detention" within the meaning of the escape statute,
5 45-7-306, MCA. We affirm.
The issue is whether Chandler was lawfully convicted of felony
escape pursuant to § 45-7-306, MCA, as interpreted in recent
decisions of this Court, when having been placed in a prerelease
center while serving a term of imprisonment for a felony convic-
tion, he fled one morning instead of going to his place of
employment.
In an affidavit in support of the State's application for
leave to file an information, the prosecutor represented that
Chandler was serving a term of imprisonment as a result of a felony
conviction in Flathead County, Montana. He was assigned to the
Butte Pre-Release Center and was employed by The Montana Standard,
a local newspaper.
Chandler failed to return to the Pre-Release Center after work
on October 14, 1994. When he did not return, Pre-Release Center
staff contacted his employer and were told that Chandler had failed
to report for work on that date.
Upon determining that Chandler had escaped, law enforcement
authorities obtained a warrant for his arrest. He was arrested in
Spokane, Washington, in December 1994 and was extradited and
returned to the Montana State Prison.
Chandler moved to dismiss the information on three grounds,
including the ground that he was not subject to "official deten-
tion" as required by 5 45-7-306, MCA, the statute defining the
offense of escape. The State opposed the motion, and the District
Court denied it without a hearing. Chandler subsequently entered
a plea agreement with the State, reserving the right to appeal the
denial of his motion to dismiss.
Was Chandler lawfully convicted of felony escape pursuant to
5 45-7-306, MCA, as interpreted in recent decisions of this Court,
when having been placed in a prerelease center while serving a term
of imprisonment for a felony conviction, he fled one morning
instead of going to his place of employment?
For Chandler's conduct to constitute an escape as proscribed
by § 45-7-306, MCA, the State must establish that Chandler
knowingly or purposely removed himself from or failed to return to
"official detention." Official detention includes
imprisonment which resulted from a conviction for an
offense, confinement for an offense, confinement of a
person charged with an offense, detention by a peace
officer pursuant to arrest, detention for extradition or
deportation, placement in a community corrections
facility or program, supervision while under a supervised
release program, participation in a county jail work
program under 7-32-2225 through 7-32-2227, or any lawful
detention for the purpose of the protection of the
welfare of the person detained or for the protection of
society. "Official detention" does not include supervi-
sion of probation or parole, constraint incidental to
release on bail, or an unlawful arrest unless the person
3
arrested employed physical force, a threat of physical
force, or a weapon to escape.
Section 45-7-306(l), MCA.
The District Court's denial of the motion to dismiss was a
conclusion of law that the State could prosecute Chandler for
escape because he was subject to official detention. This Court
reviews conclusions of law to determine whether the district
court's interpretation of the law was correct. State v. Christen-
sen (1994), 265 Mont. 374, 37576, 077 P.2d 468, 469.
In State v. Roberts (Mont. 1996), 912 P.2d 812, 53 St.Rep.
181, Roberts had been released from the Montana State Prison into
the parole-related furlough program under 5 46-23-215(3), MCA. The
issue was whether Roberts was "subject to official detention" in a
"supervised release program" as described in § 45-7-306(l), MCA.
This Court concluded that the parole-related furlough program was
not a "supervised release program," and that Roberts was not
therefore "subject to official detention" and could not be
prosecuted for escape. Roberts, 912 P.Zd at 815.
In this case, too, the issue is whether the appellant was
"subject to official detention" under § 45-7-306(l), MCA. However,
here, the State argues that the Butte Pre-Release Center is a
"community corrections facility or program," not a "supervised
release program." Therefore, Roberts does not control.
The correctional policy of the State of Montana is to deal
with nonviolent offenders in ways other than imprisonment. Section
46l&101(3) (b), MCA. Section 46-18-105, MCA, authorizes the
Department of Corrections to provide community corrections
4
facilities or programs for the rehabilitation of nonviolent felony
offenders as authorized under the Montana Community Corrections
Act, Title 53, Chapter 30, part 3, MCA. A "community corrections
facility or program" is defined under the Act as
a community-based or community-oriented facility or
program, other than a jail, that:
(a) is operated by a unit of local government, a
tribal government, or a nongovernmental agency; and
(b) provides programs and services to aid offenders
in:
(i) obtaining and holding regular employment;
(ii) enrolling in and maintaining academic courses;
(iii) participating invocational trainingprograms;
(iv) utilizing the resources of the community to
meet their personal and family needs;
(v) obtaining the benefits of specialized treatment
services that exist within the community; and
(vi) paying restitution or performing community
restitution to crime victims.
Section 53-30-303(Z), MCA. While this definition does not
specifically refer to prerelease centers, it is clear that they are
considered community corrections facilities under the Act.
Section 53-l-202(2), MCA, identifies correctional services
provided by the Department of Corrections. That statute provides
that adult correctional services include, in relevant part:
(c) appropriate community-based programs for the
placement, supervision, and rehabilitation of adult
felons who meet the criteria developed by the department
for placement:
(i) in prerelease centers;
(ii) under intensive supervision;
(iii) under parole or probation pursuant to Title
46, chapter 23, part 2; or
(iv) in other appropriate programs.
Section 53-l-202(2) (c), MCA (emphasis added). Section 53-l-
203(l) Cc), MCA, allows the Department to contract with private,
nonprofit Montana corporations to establish and maintain "community
5
based prerelease centers" for purposes of preparing prison inmates
who are approaching parole eligibility or discharge for release
into the community.
These statutes indicate that prerelease centers are part of
the community corrections system which exists as an alternative to
imprisonment. There are no other statutes or rules which define
prerelease facilities or indicate how they might fit differently
into our correctional system. We conclude that the Butte Pre-
Release Center is a "community corrections facility or program" and
that, therefore, placement at the Butte Pre-Release Center rendered
Chandler "subject to official detention."
In State v. Nelson (Mont. 19961, 910 P.Zd 247, 53 St.Rep. 50,
three inmates of Montana State Prison escaped while on daily work
assignments at the Deer Lodge, Montana, golf course. This Court
held that they were improperly sentenced for felony escape.
However, our decision in Nelson must, necessarily, be read in the
context of its facts. The Montana State Prison inmates in that
case were on work assignment outside the prison walls. They did
not escape from the state prison itself, nor did they escape while
in transit to or from that facility in which they were imprisoned.
Accordingly, given those facts and the plain language of § 45-7-
306, MCA, the only provision of that statute which would have
qualified their escape as a felony, subsection (3) (b) (i), did not
apply. Nelson, 910 P.2d at 253.
In the instant case, however, the facts are significantly
different. Here, Chandler was assigned to a prerelease center as
6
part of a "community corrections facility or program." As we have
already pointed out, "community corrections facility or program" is
a statutorily-defined term of art encompassing more than merely a
specific place of residence, incarceration or imprisonment.
Section 53-30-303(2), MCA. Such a "facility or program" contem-
plates and, in fact, mandates that participants will be involved
with employment, educational services, vocational training,
resources, treatment and restitutional activities outside of the
confines of the particular place where they are required to reside
when not engaged in such services, programs or activities.
Accordingly, where, as here, a person assigned to a "community
corrections facility or program" purposely or knowingly and without
authorization removes himself from or fails to return to either the
prerelease facility where he is required to reside as part of that
program or one of the rehabilitative programs or services specified
in § 53-30-303(2), MCA, then his conduct falls within the plain
language of § 45-7-306(3) (b) (i), MCA, and subjects him to punish-
ment for felony escape if he is charged with and convicted of that
offense.
We hold that the District Court was correct in concluding that
Chandler was lawfully convicted of felony escape pursuant to § 45-
7-306, MCA. In doing so, however, we also observe that strict
application of the language of the statute--our duty under 5 l-2-
101, MCA--to specific fact situations produces results that are not
easily reconciled from a common sense point of view. Are prison
inmates on a golf course work assignment who unlawfully become
intoxicated and steal a vehicle and head for the nearest large city
on the public highways (Nelson--guilty of misdemeanor escape) less
dangerous or less culpable than a prerelease center resident who
leaves for his job and never shows up (Chandler--felony escape)?
While it is, obviously, the legislature's duty to define crimes and
their punishments, we suggest that the offense of escape and its
punishment bear some thoughtful reappraisal.
Affirmed.
We concur:
August 20, 1996
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the following certified order was sent by United States mail, prepaid,
to the following named:
William F. Hooks
Appellate Defender
P.O. Box
Helena, MT 59624
Jamie Scott Chandler
700 Conley Lake Rd.
Deer Lodge, MT 59722
Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek
Attorney General
Justice Bldg.
Helena, MT 59620
Robert M. McCarthy, County Attorney
Brad Newman, Deputy
155 W. Granite Street
Butte, MT 59701
ED SMITH
CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF MONTANA
BY: ‘@zw
Deputy