Magness v. State, 2012 Ark. 16

Magness was convicted of two nonviolent felonies and released on a bed-space bond under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-122, with conditions including reporting to authorities and not leaving the state without permission.
The circuit court ordered bond to ensure the offender’s return to custody upon bed-space availability and allowed temporary release with a cash or professional bond.
In April 2010, Magness left Arkansas without permission and violated release conditions, leading to a second-degree escape charge under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-54-lll(a)(2).
Magness was convicted by a jury and sentenced as a habitual offender to 30 years’ imprisonment in the DOC.
The central question on appeal was whether Magness was “in custody” for purposes of the escape statute, given the bed-space release arrangement and bond.
The State and the defense debated the interplay of statutes governing temporary release, bonds, and “return to custody.”

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Magness in custody for purposes of the escape statute?	State argues constructive restraint constitutes custody.	Magness was released on bond, not in custody, thus not in custody.	Yes; not in custody—reversed and dismissed.

Bush v. State, 338 Ark. 772 (1999) (in custody depends on context; bond vs actual custody; legislative intent)
Anderson v. State, 2011 Ark. 461 (2011) (sufficiency of evidence; de novo review for statutory interpretation)
State v. Britt, 368 Ark. 273 (2006) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning; harmony of related provisions)