Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the defendant appealed his conviction for escaping from custody, arguing that there was a fatal variance between the charge and the proof, as he had not been sentenced for armed robbery at the time of his escape. The jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to two to six years in prison. The indictment charged him with escaping after being convicted, which the court interpreted to mean the conviction occurred with the jury verdict, not the sentencing. The court clarified that a conviction, for purposes of the relevant statutes, is defined by the jury's verdict, irrespective of pending sentencing. Consequently, the evidence supported the escape charge. Additionally, the court addressed the issue of consecutive sentencing, noting that the defendant's escape sentence was initially ordered to run consecutively to a now-reversed armed robbery sentence. The court remanded the case to amend the mittimus to reflect that the escape sentence is not consecutive to any invalid sentence. Ultimately, the judgment of conviction and sentence was affirmed, with instructions to correct the sentencing order.
Legal Issues Addressed
Consecutive Sentencing and Reversalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the escape conviction but required an amended mittimus to reflect that the escape sentence is not consecutive to any reversed armed robbery sentence.
Reasoning: As there was no longer a valid sentence for armed robbery, the court affirmed the escape conviction and remanded the case for the trial court to issue an amended mittimus indicating that the escape sentence is not consecutive to any lawful sentence.
Definition of Conviction under Criminal Codesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that a conviction occurs when a judgment is rendered upon a jury verdict, which is separate from sentencing.
Reasoning: The court clarified that while a conviction is not final for appeal purposes until sentencing, this does not pertain to the definition of a conviction under the relevant statutes.
Variance between Charge and Proofsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found no fatal variance between the charge and the proof, as the conviction for armed robbery occurred with the jury verdict, supporting the escape charge.
Reasoning: He was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to two to six years in prison. The indictment stated that he escaped on March 9, 1975, after being convicted of armed robbery on March 7, 1975.