Skip to content
Name: People v. Allen
Case #: C079143
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 11/28/2016
Summary

Defendant’s escape conviction upheld where he voluntarily left his place of confinement during his curfew period and did not return. As part of his sentence in a previous felony case, Allen agreed to comply with a GPS monitoring agreement whereby he was confined to his mother’s house. He was required to be at the home between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. One day, Allen and his mother argued over his failure to follow her rules and she told him if he could not comply with her wishes, he should leave. He left his mother’s house and she locked him out. He did not return to his place of confinement or notify the alternative custody staff of his circumstances. He was charged and convicted of escape (Pen. Code, § 4532, subd. (b)(1)). On appeal he argued that he did not willfully fail to return to his place of confinement as required by the statute. Held: Affirmed. “An escape is an unlawful departure from the limits of an inmate’s custody.” A prisoner’s willful failure “to return to his or her place of confinement no later than the expiration of the period that he or she was authorized to be away,” is an escape (Pen. Code, § 4532, subd. (e)). Allen’s custody agreement required him to be at his mother’s house from 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. He voluntarily left his mother’s house at 2:36 a.m. and thereby committed an escape. The fact that Allen’s mother told him that he should leave if he could not follow her rules is irrelevant because she gave him the option to stay if he complied with her rules, yet he chose to leave.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C079143.PDF