OPINION
JACKSON, Presiding Judge:T1 Frederick Germonto appeals from a conviction for escape from official custody, a second degree felony, in violation of Utah Code Annotated Section 76-8-809 (1999) (escape statute). We reverse.
BACKGROUND
12 On February 5, 2000, Germonto, an inmate at the Utah State Prison, attended chapel with a group of other inmates. While walking from the prison chapel back to his housing unit, Germonto broke rank and sealed a ten-foot chain link fence that separated the inmate housing yard from the outer perimeter area of the prison. He then proceeded to scale the perimeter fence, which had razor wire at the top. Prison guards arrived and ordered Germonto off the fence. Germonto dropped from the fence back onto the prison grounds, ran parallel to the perimeter fence, then stopped and was taken back into custody.
T8 On March 9, 2000, the State filed an Information charging Germonto with violating the escape statute. A preliminary hearing was held before the Third District Court on August 17, 2000, at which Germonto argued that he could not be bound over on the crime of escape because he had not left the confines of the prison and therefore had not actually completed an escape.
T4 The district court judge, acting as a magistrate, rejected Germonto's arguments and bound Germonto over for trial on the charge of escape. Germonto filed a pro se motion to quash the bindover, which was denied. His case was then transferred to a judge in West Valley City, and Germonto renewed his motion to dismiss. Germonto also challenged the State's ability to request a lesser included offense instruction of attempted escape when it was proceeding on the escape charge based on an incomplete escape.
T5 On March 19, 2002, Germonto entered a conditional plea of no contest, expressly reserving his right to appeal the adverse rulings regarding the propriety of the bind-over. This appeal followed.
ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
16 Germonto challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support a bindover on the charge of eseape. To support a bind-over, the State must introduce "sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it." State v. Clark, 2001 UT 9,1 16, 20 P.3d 300. This requires the State to present believable evidence as to each of elements of the crime. See id. at $13. To determine the elements of the crime, the court must interpret the statute under which the defendant is charged. Statutory interpretation is a matter of law, which we review for correctness. See State v. Maestas, 2000 UT App 22,1 11, 997 P.2d 314.
ANALYSIS
T7 In interpreting statutes, we first look to the plain language of the statute. See Travelers/Aetna Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 2002 UT App 221," 12, 51 P.3d 1288. In considering the plain language of a statute, courts " 'presume that the legislature used each word advisedly and give effect to each term according to its ordinary and accepted meaning." " Arredondo v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 2001 UT 29,§ 12, 24 P.3d 928 (citations omitted). We consider other methods of statutory construction only when a statute is ambiguous.1
*980T8 The plain language of Utah's escape statute requires that an inmate leave the confines of the prison to be guilty of escape. The escape statute plainly states that "[al prisoner is guilty of escape if he leaves official custody without authorization." Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-809(1). Subsection (7)(b) defines "official custody" as "confinement in the state prison" for purposes of this case.2 Subsection (7)(a) further defines "confinement" as "housed in a state prison." Id. § 76-8-309(7)(a)). Thus, to be guilty of escape, an inmate must leave his confinement or housing in the prison.
T9 The term "housing" is not defined in Utah's escape statute. The State argues, and the trial court agreed, that we should construe the term to include only the authorized areas of the prison. According to this definition, Germonto completed an escape because he stepped out of the queue of inmates without authorization. Germonto argues that we should construe the term to include the "confines of the prison," or the perimeter fence and all areas of the prison within the fence. We are persuaded that Germonto's construction of the term "housing" better accords with the legislative intent of the statute.
110 Although decisions from other jurisdictions interpreting statutes with distinct language provide little guidance in interpreting the language of Utah's escape statute, the decision in State v. Gaines, 872 So.2d 552 (La.1979) is worth noting because the statute at issue in that case is similar to Utah's escape statute. The statute at issue in Gaines defined escape as "the intentional departure ... of a person imprisoned, committed, detained, or otherwise in the lawful custody of any law enforcement officer ... from any place where such person is lawfulty confined." Id. at 554 (quoting La. RS. 14;110(A)) (emphasis added). The court concluded that "any place where [a person is] legally confined" must necessarily be a place with physical barriers where the person is actually confined. Id. at 555. In reaching that determination, the court recognized that "[alny less definitive or more ambiguous definition of place of confinement would render the statute unconstitutionally vague." Id. In addition, the court recognized that even if the language were ambiguous, any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the defendant. See id. at 554. Because Gaines departed from an okra patch on prison grounds where he was on work detail but did not otherwise leave the confinement or boundaries of the prison, the court held that he did not commit an escape when he ran from the line where he was working and continued running even after a guard told him to stop and fired warning shots. See id. at 558-54.
T11 Like the statute in Gaines, if Utah's escape statute were interpreted to allow a conviction for escape when an inmate has not left the confines of the prison, the statute would be void for vagueness. A stat*981ute is unconstitutionally vague if it: (1) fails to provide a "person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited."; (2) "impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoe and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application"; or (3) inhibits the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298-99, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). If we interpreted the statute so that an escape occurs even though the inmate has not left the official custody or confinement of the prison, the statute would violate the first two of these prohibitions.
1 12 First, a person of ordinary intelligence would not have notice as to what conduct is prohibited. The statute itself defines "official custody" as confinement in the state prison, and defines "confinement" as "housed in the state prison." While the statute defines the term "confinement," that term also has an ordinary and commonly understood meaning that is consistent with the statutory definition. - "Confinement" means imprisonment or being confined, i.e., being held within a boundary or bounded region. Webster's New World College Dictionary 806 (4th ed.1999). A person of ordinary intelligence could not read the escape statute and be given notice that he would be guilty of a completed escape even if he did not leave the confines of the prison.
{ 13 Second, if we interpreted the statute to allow a completed escape even though Germonto did not leave the prison grounds, we would leave prison guards, judges, and juries to decide whether an escape occurred any time an inmate entered a restricted area or even left his cell when he was not supposed to do so. The escape statute would be enforced arbitrarily to convict some inmates who venture out of their cells while subjecting others only to administrative sanctions based on the whim of the guards and not on legislative mandate.
T 14 In order to "save [the statute] from constitutional conflicts or infirmities," Intermountain Slurry Seal v. Labor Commission, 2002 UT App 164,116, 48 P.3d 252, the trial court's interpretation must be rejected. Instead, we must uphold the plain language of the statute, which requires an inmate to leave the confinement of the prison in order to commit an escape.
1 15 Our decision is bolstered by the portion of the code that outlines the elements for attempt crimes. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-4-101 (1999). "[A] person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for the commission of the offense, he engages in conduct constituting a substantial step toward the commission of the offense." Id. The attempt statute further requires that any conduct be "strongly corroborative of the actor's intent to commit the offense" to constitute a "substantial step." Id.
T 16 We would eviscerate the crime of attempted escape if we considered any conduct by an inmate who moves to an area on prison grounds that is restricted or in which he is not supposed to be a completed escape. Any time an inmate is out of his cell when he is not supposed to be, fails to awake and vacate his cell when he is supposed to do so, is in the cell of another inmate, disregards the order of a guard, or otherwise moves out of bounds, the state could charge the inmate with a completed escape. Such an approach would run contrary to the legislative intent that an inmate leave official custody by leaving the confinement of the prison in order to commit a completed escape, and would do away with the crime of attempted escape.
{17 The trial court's interpretation also disregards the purposes and principles set forth in Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-104 (1999), which requires that the provisions of the code be interpreted so that the elements of a crime are clearly defined, the penalties are proportionate to the seriousness of the offense, and arbitrary or oppressive treatment is prevented. The trial court's interpretation would allow for a punishment that is disproportionate to the crime because an inmate who did not leave the confinement of the prison would receive the same second degree felony punishment as an inmate who did leave the prison.
*98218 Finally, the prison has administrative rules for internally punishing inmates who move into restricted areas. When an inmate leaves his or her assigned area, the prison has the ability to impose sanctions. Léaving the assigned area is not the same as "leaving official custody" and is appropriately punished internally by restricting the inmate's privileges, transferring the inmate to a more secure location, requiring that the inmate be locked down for a significant portion of the day, or imposing other appropriate internal sanctions. See, eg., People v. Lavaie, 70 Cal.App Ath 456, 462, 82 Cal.Rptr2d 719 (1999) (determining that an inmate was subject to disciplinary rules but was not guilty of escape where guards saw two men walking toward the gate at 1:00 a.m., and where the defendant was missing from bed count but was later found within a restricted area of the prison); State v. Liggett, 368 So.2d 1184, 1186 (La.1978) (concluding that an inmate who did not report for work and who was later found in another section of the prison was subject to prison disciplinary rules but did not commit the crime of escape).
CONCLUSION
T19 In this case, there was not probable cause to believe Germonto completed the crime of escape because there is no evidence that he left the confines of the prison. While the evidence demonstrated that Germonto climbed over the inner fence, there is no evidence that he made it over the outer boundary fence and left the prison. Although the State presented sufficient evidence to bind Germonto over on the charge of attempted escape, it failed to establish probable cause to bind Germonto over on the crime of escape. Accordingly, the trial court erred in refusing to quash the bindover on that charge. We now reverse and remand for withdrawal of the conditional plea.
120 I CONCUR: JAMES Z. DAVIS, Judge.. Even in construing ambiguous statutes, our focus remains on effectuating the legislative in*980tent. See Intermountain Slurry Seal v. Labor Comm'n, 2002 UT App 164,%6, 48 P.3d 252 ("When doubt or uncertainty exists as to the meaning or application of an act's provisions, an analysis of the act in its entirety should be undertaken and its provisions harmonized in accordance with the legislative intent and purpose.").
. Subsection (7)(b) reads in full:
"Official custody" means arrest, whether with or without warrant, or confinement in a state prison, jail, institution for secure confinement of juvenile offenders, or any confinement pursuant to an order of the court or sentenced and committed and the sentence has not been terminated or voided or the prisoner is not on parole. A person is considered confined in the state prison if he:
(i) without authority fails to return to his place of confinement from work release or home visit by the time designated for return;
(i) is in prehearing custody after arrest for parole violation;
(Hii) is being housed in a county jail, after felony commitment, pursuant to a contract with the Department of Corrections; or
(iv) is being transported as a prisoner in the state prison by correctional officers.
Utah Code Ann. § 76~8-309(7)(b) (emphasis added). The last sentence of subsection (7)(b) clarifies that a person can be in "official custody" and therefore can be charged with escape even if he is not actually being held in the prison on a felony commitment. Id. Instead, a person is in "official custody" if he is on work release, being held on a parole violation, being held at a county jail on a prison commitment, or being transported to court, the hospital or elsewhere. Id. § 76-8-309(7)(i)-(iif). None of these circumstances, however, apply to Germonto. Germonto was in "official custody" due to his "confinement in the state prison." Id. § 76-8-309(7)(b).