Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 14-8-42 (2026)
Willful Failure of Inmate to Remain Within Extended Limits of Confinement or Return to Place of Confinement Within Time Prescribed.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
The willful failure of an inmate to remain within the extended limits of his confinement or to return to the place of confinement within the time prescribed shall be deemed an escape from a state penal institution in the case of a state inmate and an escape from the custody of the sheriff in the case of a county inmate and shall be punishable accordingly.
(Acts 1976, No. 637, p. 883, §6.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1988–2014 · leading case: Doseck v. State, 8 So. 3d 1024 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008).
Doseck v. State, 8 So. 3d 1024 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008). “t's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that, based on the facts of his case, the indictment erroneously charged him with the felony offense of second-degree escape instead of the misdemeanor offense of failing to remain within the extended limits of…”
Webb v. State, 539 So. 2d 343 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988). “However, a county inmate or a state inmate in county custody who fails to return from work release is guilty only of a misdemeanor under § 14-8-42. Alabama's new criminal code repealed § 14-8-8, which made it a misdemeanor for a state inmate, not in county custody, to fail to…”
Cork v. State, 603 So. 2d 1127 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992). “The appellant contends that the trial court was without jurisdiction to render judgment or impose sentence because he should have been indicted for and convicted of the willful failure of an inmate to remain within the extended limits of his *1128 confinement or to return to the…”
State v. Worley, 102 So. 3d 408 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009). “peal that the circuit court had erred when it denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, and he argued that he had been erroneously charged with the felony offense of second-degree escape instead of the misdemeanor offense of failing to remain within the extended limits of…”
Conner v. State, 840 So. 2d 950 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). “Before pleading guilty, Conner expressly reserved the right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that his actions constituted the misdemeanor offense of failing to remain within the extended limits of confinement or failing to…”
Dukes v. State, 587 So. 2d 1065 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991). “Dukes first alleged that the trial court was without jurisdiction to impose his sentence because, he argues, he was guilty of the misdemeanor offense of escape as a state inmate in county custody who failed to return from work release, see § 14-8-42, rather than guilty of felony…”
Terrell v. State, 621 So. 2d 402 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993). “The appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to give his requested jury instruction on “willful failure” to return to the place of his confinement, as per § 14-8-42, Code of Alabama 1975, as a lesser included offense of escape in the third degree.”
Ex parte Shannon Ray Johnson., 171 So. 3d 1 (Ala. 2014). “I believe that the conclusion by the 8 1131279 Court of Criminal Appeals that departing a work-release center without authorization does not constitute misdemeanor escape finds no support in the language of § 14-8-42, which prohibits "[t]he willful failure of an inmate to remain…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.