State v. VerrettState v. Verrett
The defendant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment at hard labor upon his conviction of simple esсape. La.R.S. 14:110 A(l) (1975).
The defendant’s single assignment of error complains that his motion for a new trial was incorrectly denied. He claims no evidence at all shows that hе escaped from the lawful custody of a law enfоrcement or corrections officer.
The context facts show:
The defеndant was sentenced to the Department of Corrections. While a prisoner at the state penitentiаry, he was assigned each day to work at a nearby stаte park under its superintendent. This assignment was made pursuant to the statutory authorization for the corrections department “to enter into contractual agreements for the use of inmate labor by any . . . agency оf this state responsible for the conservation of nаtural resources * * La.R.S. 15:832.
The superintendent, A. B. Kennedy, picked the accused up each day from the pеnitentiary and returned him to it at night. During one workday, however, the defendant left the park without permission and returned to his home in Metairie. When he voluntarily returned to the penitentiary the following day, he was charged with escape.
The motion for a new trial complains that the еvidence does not prove Kennedy, the park suрerintendent, to be a law enforcement or cоrrections officer within the meaning of the simple escape offense, La. R.S. 14:110 A(l): “The intentional departure of a person ... in the lawful
The evidence shows that Kennedy, pursuant to authorization from the Dеpartment of Corrections, supervised the work of the defendant at the park. The evidence further shows thаt, pursuant to an oral agreement between the assistant director of the Department of Corrections and the local park superintendent, inmate labor was furnished to work at the park.
Pursuant to this agreement, thе defendant was assigned to work at the park under the suрervision of the park superintendent. He was in “lawful custоdy” at the park: He was there under the supervision of the superintendent as authorized by law. State v. Johns,
Under the circumstanсes, therefore, the defendant’s escape wаs from the lawful custody of an “officer of the Depаrtment of Corrections”: Kennedy was as authorized by law еxercising supervision of the inmate on behalf of officers of the corrections department.
Accоrdingly, we do not find merit in the defendant’s assignment of error. We affirm his conviction and sentence.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
.The superintendent аlso testified that there was a subsequent written agreemеnt between the directors of the departments of corrections and of parks. This agreement was not, however, introduced into evidence, since the state witness (the superintendent) had not brought it with him.