Interpretation of the Prison Escape Statute (MCL 750.193); People v. Sheets; People v. Armisted; Principle that a parolee remains in the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC) even after he or she is released into the community; People v. Kern; Motion to quash; People v. Stone; Principle that it is an abuse of discretion to base a decision to quash on an error of law; People v. Duncan; Statutory construction; People v. Cunningham; Unlawful incarceration claim; Whether the defendant was entitled to a parole revocation hearing before he could be sent to & held at a Residential Re-Entry Program facility; In re Parole of Haeger; Jones v. Department of Corr.; Whether Michigan law recognizes a right to self-help to avoid unlawful imprisonment; Moses v. Department of Corr.; People v. Alexander; People v. Hamaker; People v. Hurst

Holding that the trial court erred in interpreting the last sentence of MCL 750.193(3) to provide immunity from prosecution under the statute to parolees whose escape also constitutes a violation of a condition of parole, the court reversed the trial court’s order dismissing the prison escape charge against the defendant, and remanded further proceedings. Defendant was released into the community on parole. Months later, he was picked up on suspicion that he violated the conditions of his parole, and the DOC placed him in a Residential Re-Entry Program facility (the Lake Facility). He later “went missing” from there, and after being arrested, was charged with prison escape in violation of MCL 750.193 and another offense. The trial court agreed with his claim that his “escape from the Lake Facility could not constitute a violation of MCL 750.193.” He argued that he could not be convicted of “prison escape for breaking out of the Lake Facility because he was assigned to the Lake Facility as a condition of parole and the violation of a condition of parole cannot constitute prison escape.” In the last sentence of MCL 750.193(3), the Legislature provided that a “person violating the conditions of parole is not an escapee under this act.” The court concluded it was “evident that the Legislature did not intend to provide persons who violate their parole with immunity from prosecution under MCL 750.193. Rather, it intended to preclude the prosecutor from relying on a violation of a condition of parole as the sole basis for a prosecution under MCL 750.193.” Because the prosecution “established the elements of prison escape without relying on the fact that the escape amounted to a violation of a condition of parole, the trial court necessarily abused its discretion” in granting his “motion to quash the charge of prison escape on the basis of its erroneous understanding of the law.” Defendant also argued that he could not be prosecuted for prison escape because his incarceration at the Lake Facility was unlawful due to the DOC’s failure to first conduct a parole revocation hearing. The court concluded that it did “not appear that his detention was unlawful” and assuming he had a common-law right to use self-help to avoid unlawful imprisonment, he would simply be entitled to present that defense at trial.