Escape Attempt to Remove Oneself from Official Detention Removal of Work Release Privileges as Punishment Double Jeopardy
Commonwealth v. Waugaman, PICS Case No. 17-1224 (Pa. Super. July 13, 2017) Olson, J. (6 pages).
A work-release prisoner's failure to go to work after being released to do so and having his whereabouts unknown for a majority of his absence from prison constituted a sufficiently significant deviation from the route of travel to constitute the offense of escape. Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Rick Waugaman appealed from the judgment of sentence following his conviction for escape. Appellant's conviction arose from an incident in which appellant, who was incarcerated but had been granted work-release status, did not go to his job after being released for work but instead went to his girlfriend's house, although appellant did return to the prison that same day. Appellant's work-release status was subsequently revoked. A jury later convicted appellant of escape, and appellant was sentenced to one to four years' incarceration.
On appeal, appellant challenged the commonwealth's evidence for escape, arguing that the commonwealth did not prove that he attempted to remove himself from official detention. Appellant further challenged the denial of his motion in limine, arguing that his actions were addressed by the revocation of his work-release status, thereby making his prosecution a violation of double jeopardy.
The court first rejected appellant's argument that, although he did not go to work, he maintained contact with his employer and the prison and voluntarily returned to the prison, such that his actions did not constitute a substantial deviation from his travel route necessary to constitute escape. The court noted that, unlike other cases where prisoners were either late returning to the prison or made a brief stop going to or coming from work, appellant never went to work on the date in question, and that his whereabouts were unaccounted for during most of his absence from the prison. The court held that this detour was a substantial deviation from his travel route sufficient to constitute escape.
The court further rejected appellant's double jeopardy argument, noting that prison disciplinary action imposed for violation of prison regulations constituted predictable punishment under the original sentence as part of the need to maintain safe, orderly, and efficient institutional administration, and did not trigger the constitutional prohibitions against subsequent criminal prosecution for such violations.
Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of sentence.