PA Superior Court: Insufficient Evidence of Escape Where Police Arrested Defendant, Took Him to Hospital, Removed Handcuffs, and Left

Pennsylvania Case Law Update - Escape Charges Require Evidence of "Official Detention"

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has just reaffirmed that a conviction for escape cannot be upheld under Pennsylvania law without evidence that the defendant was subject to official detention at the time that the defendant walked out. In Commonwealth v. Treece, the court found that a defendant could not have committed the crime of escape where he was arrested, taken to the hospital, and then left uncuffed and unguarded at the hospital for over an hour before walking out and returning to work. 

THE ESCAPE ALLEGATIONS

Defendant Treece violated a Protection From Abuse order. He was taken to the police station, and while there, he indicated to the arresting officers that he felt sick. The police called paramedics, and paramedics took Treece to the hospital. During transport, Treece was cuffed to the gurney. However, once he was admitted to the hospital, it became clear that Treece was going to be there for a while. The police removed the handcuffs and left. Shockingly, Treece quickly recovered from his illness and walked out of the hospital. Police later arrested Treece and charged him with escape for leaving the hospital. The jury convicted him, and he was sentenced to 11.5 – 23 months of incarceration in the county jail.

APPEAL TO THE SUPERIOR COURT

Treece appealed his conviction for escape to the Superior Court, arguing that the Commonwealth introduced insufficient evidence at trial to sustain a conviction because he was no longer in official detention as required by the escape statute once the police officers uncuffed him and left. As the Superior Court noted, the crime of escape occurs when someone “unlawfully removes himself from official detention or fails to return to official detention following temporary leave granted for a specific purpose or limited period.” The escape statute further defines official detention as:

arrest, detention in any facility for custody of persons under charge or conviction of crime or alleged or found to be delinquent, detention for extradition or deportation, or any other detention for law enforcement purposes; but the phrase does not include supervision of probation or parole, or constraint incidental to release on bail.

The Superior Court quickly noted that once police took Treece to the hospital, he was no longer in a facility for custody of persons. Because police removed the handcuffs and left, he was also no longer in police custody. Therefore, the only remaining issue was whether he was subject to “any other detention for law enforcement purposes.” A person is subject to detention for law enforcement purposes when a reasonable person, considering the totality of the circumstances, would not believe themselves free to leave. This is the same as the standard for whether an encounter with the police rises to the level of a Terry stop.

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF OFFICIAL DETENTION

Here, the Superior Court concluded that Treece was not subject to detention for law enforcement purposes. The police had removed the handcuffs and left over an hour before he left the hospital. Further, it is not uncommon in the suburban counties for a defendant to be arrested, given paperwork, and released prior to preliminary arraignment. The court also noted that when hospital employees called the police and told them what had happened, the police did not immediately obtain a warrant or take any other action to retrieve Treece. Likewise, none of the police officers told Treece he could not leave the hospital.

Therefore, the Court found that a reasonable person in Treece’s position would have believed that he was free to leave. Of course, Treece was in official detention while handcuffed and guarded by the police officers. But once they left and did not return for more than an hour, the official detention ended, and Treece could not commit the crime of escape. Accordingly, the Superior Court reversed Treece’s conviction for escape due to the Commonwealth’s failure to introduce sufficient evidence at trial that Treece was subject to an “official detention.”

Our Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers Can Help You Fight Escape Charges

Treece illustrates that criminal statutes are more complicated than they may seem. In many cases, criminal statutes define ordinary, common terms such as escape or official detention in specific ways which may vary from their normal usage. Under Pennsylvania law, escape has a very specific detention which requires a showing of official detention. Although prosecutors and many people likely had a gut feeling that Treece had done something wrong by leaving, every criminal statute requires the government to prove specific statutory elements in order to obtain a conviction. Therefore, it is absolutely critical that you retain an experienced criminal defense lawyer if you are facing criminal charges. There may very well be defenses of which you are unaware. If you are facing charges in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, call 267-225-2545 for a free criminal defense strategy session with one of our Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers.   

What is Possessing an Instrument of a Crime?

We just updated our section on misdemeanor crimes in Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia Municipal Court to include a discussion of Possessing Instruments of Crime charges. Possessing Instruments of Crime is a particularly common charge in the Philadelphia Municipal Court. Prosecutors often bring this charge whenever the defendant possesses some type of object during the commission of a crime. However, there may be defenses to a PIC charge. Click here to learn more. 

CASE RESULTS – Successful Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition Vacates 30 Year Prison Sentence

Successful Results in PCRA, Aggravated Assault, Burglary, and Theft Cases

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers Zak T. Goldstein and Demetra Mehta continue to find success in the courtroom. In the last month, our criminal lawyers have obtained successful results in PCRA Petitions and cases involving assault, burglary, drug, and theft charges. If you are facing criminal charges, call 267-225-2545 for a free criminal defense strategy session with one of our defense lawyers.    

Commonwealth v. ZS – Attorney Goldstein recently obtained a new sentencing hearing for a defendant who had been sentenced to 15-30 years in jail for a direct violation of probation. The defendant was on probation for selling drugs when he was arrested and ultimately convicted of robbery. After receiving a sentence of up to 20 years for the robbery case, the probation judge sentenced the defendant to 15-30 years consecutive to the sentence for the robbery charges. This led to an overall sentence which could have kept the defendant in jail for up to 50 years despite his young age at the time of the conviction for the direct violation.

Philadelphia PCRA Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esq.

After reviewing the transcripts from the violation of probation hearing, Attorney Goldstein quickly recognized that significant legal errors had occurred during the probation sentencing to which the original lawyer should have objected. Mr. Goldstein filed a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition amending the defendant’s initial pro se filings and arguing that the defendant should receive a new probation violation sentencing because defense counsel had been ineffective at the original hearing. Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel under both the Pennsylvania and United States constitutions, and an ineffective performance by counsel at the trial, appeal, or probation levels can lead to a new trial, appeal, sentencing, or probation hearing. In this case, defense counsel at the original violation hearing failed to object when the probation judge found on the record that the defendant’s expressions of remorse were hollow solely because the defendant refused to waive his right to an in-person probation violation hearing and allow the hearing to be conducted by video from the state prison. Further, defense counsel failed to file a motion to reconsider the sentence or appeal the excessive sentence. Attorney Goldstein argued that defendants have a constitutional right to be present for important hearings in their cases, and courts may not legally punish defendants for exercising those rights. Further, when courts rely on illegal sentencing factors such as the decision to exercise a constitutional right, the defendant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing.

The Commonwealth filed a Motion to Dismiss the PCRA Petition, arguing both that the Petition was untimely because Petitioner did not formally title his pro se petition as a PCRA Petition and that original counsel was not required to object or litigate the issues on appeal in order to be effective. The Court agreed with Attorney Goldstein, denied the prosecution’s Motion to Dismiss, and granted the PCRA Petition. The court ordered that the defendant receive a new sentencing hearing which, due to the passage of time since the original sentence, will occur in front of a different judge from the one who placed the defendant on probation. Although the outcome of the new sentencing is far from guaranteed, the defense will have the opportunity to argue for something less than the original 15-30 year consecutive sentence.    

Commonwealth v. JB – JB was charged with a domestic violence Aggravated Assault for choking his girlfriend. Aggravated Assault is one of the most serious felonies that a defendant can face in Pennsylvania, and if JB had been convicted of Aggravated Assault, he would have almost certainly been facing jail time. Our attorneys were able to negotiate a plea to Simple Assault as a misdemeanor of the second degree for one year of probation. JB will not become a felon as a result of this case, and he is no longer facing a significant jail sentence.   

Commonwealth v. RD – Burglary and Assault Charges dismissed at preliminary hearing.

Commonwealth v. DM – Our attorneys obtained entry into a diversionary program for a client who was charged with underage drinking. If the client completes a class and pays a small fine, the arrest will be expunged and the client will not lose their driver’s license.

Commonwealth v. DB – The client was charged with Aggravated Assault and DUI for nearly running over an acquaintance. Aggravated Assault is a serious felony which often results in jail time. Despite the fact that much of the incident was captured on surveillance video, our attorneys were able to negotiate a deal for simple assault and DUI with no jail time. Instead of facing jail time and a felony conviction, the defendant will spend five days on house arrest and six months on probation and be able to apply for an ignition interlock driver’s license when the new interlock law goes into effect in August.

Commonwealth v. BR – Our attorneys negotiated a fully mitigated sentence of 1.5 – 3 years in jail for a defendant who had pleaded guilty to committing the F1 Robbery and F1 Aggravated Assault of an off duty police officer while on probation.

Commonwealth v. JR – Attorney Goldstein obtained a probationary sentence with drug treatment for a defendant who entered into an open guilty plea to selling drugs while police watched. Although the Pennsylvania sentencing guidelines called for a state prison sentence, Attorney Goldstein convinced the sentencing judge that the defendant should be given a chance at treatment and job training instead of jail time.

Commonwealth v. JB – Obtained a dismissal of Unauthorized Use of Automobile charges prior to trial.

Commonwealth v. WB – Obtained a dismissal of F2 Aggravated Assault charges prior to trial.

Commonwealth v. TR – Defendant was charged with burglary. Attorney Goldstein obtained a dismissal of the burglary charges at the preliminary hearing.

Commonwealth v. IR –The defendant was charged with Theft by Unlawful Taking and Receiving Stolen Property as felonies of the third degree after police arrested him and alleged that he had been the passenger in a stolen car. Attorney Goldstein obtained a full dismissal of the charges following the preliminary hearing. Attorney Goldstein argued that the defendant had not been identified as the driver of the vehicle or done anything else incriminating like running or making any inculpatory statements. Likewise, there was nothing about the car which would indicate to anyone inside of it that it had been stolen. Accordingly, the evidence was insufficient to show that the client knew or should have known that the car was stolen or that the client was the one who stole or ever possessed the car.

Attorney Goldstein Quoted in Creditcards.com Article on Avoiding Credit Card Fraud Accusations

CreditCards.com recently posted an article discussing ways to avoid allegations of credit card fraud when using a romantic partner's credit card with permission. The article includes good advice from Attorney Goldstein on ways you can protect yourself from these kinds of allegations.

An excerpt from the article: 

Fraud Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esq.

How to keep from being charged with credit card fraud
The easiest way to avoid being charged with credit card fraud is to keep your finances simple and separate from anyone else’s, with the exception of a trusted spouse.

If you need to use someone’s credit card, be careful. Goldstein says, “If it’s the occasional small purchase in an ongoing relationship, you probably do not have a lot to worry about.”

For more than occasional use, consider asking the person to add you as an authorized user.

“If you’re going to be making large purchases, it never hurts to document that you have permission upfront,” says Goldstein. “I don’t mean you need a formal, signed contract. You could shoot your girlfriend a text message that you’re about to use the card to purchase the treadmill for $1,000 and make sure it’s OK. Take a screenshot, and save it to a cloud-based email system.”

Written permission is your best protection against misunderstandings and accusations later on.

Click below to read the article:

Can you be charged for unwittingly committing credit card fraud?