Appeal from Marquette, Bernard H. Davidson, J.
Quinn, P. J., and J. H. Gillis and Allen, JJ. J. H. Gillis, J., concurred. Allen, J. (concurring in result).
A prisoner escapes if he moves himself from the imposed restraint over his person and volition, and this can be accomplished by a prisoner while he is still within the area controlled by the prison.
2. -- Prison Escape -- Intent to Leave -- Statutes.
A prisoner need not cross any prison boundaries before he is subject to prosecution for prison escape under the prison escape statute; nonetheless, there must be some indication that a prisoner had leaving on his mind, and it is insufficient that a prisoner merely enters an off-limits area of the prison without permission (MCLA 750.192; MSA 28.390).
3. -- Evidence -- Prison Escape -- Intent to Leave.
A defendant was properly found guilty of prison escape where there was evidence in the record indicating that the defendant intended to leave the prison along with the fact that defendant had entered an off-limits area of the prison without permission.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Quinn
Milagro Quintero was convicted of prison escape. Defendant appeals.
Defendant's non-jury trial resulted in his conviction of prison escape, MCLA 750.193; MSA 28.390, for which he received an additional sentence of six months added to his minimum and maximum sentence. He appeals, contending the trial Judge erred by applying an incorrect legal standard in finding escape on this record; that the proof failed to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt standard"; and that the sentence subjects him to double punishment.
The key to a solution of this appeal lies in the meaning of "escape" as contained in MCLA 750.193, (supra) . We have been cited to no case factually identical to this case nor has independent research disclosed such authority. The record here establishes beyond question that defendant was where he had no right to be without ...