Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 17
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-27-106 (2026)

Escape from custody from a community corrections program

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) (a) If an offender fails to remain within the extended limits of such offender's confinement or placement or fails to return within the time prescribed to any community corrections program to which such offender was assigned or transferred or if any offender who participates in a program established under the provisions of this article leaves such offender's place of employment or, having been ordered by the executive director of the department of corrections or the chief probation officer of the judicial district to return to the community corrections program, neglects or fails to do so, such offender shall be deemed to have escaped from custody and shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished as provided in section 18-8-208, C.R.S., and all reductions in sentence authorized by part 2 of article 22.5 of this title shall be forfeited.

(b) (I) In addition to the forfeiture of all reductions in sentence authorized by part 2 of article 22.5 of this title, any person convicted of escape from custody from a community correction program in violation of paragraph (a) of this subsection (1) shall also forfeit all reductions in sentence authorized by section 18-1.3-301 (1)(i), C.R.S.

(II) Repealed.

(2) The division of criminal justice is hereby authorized to provide notice to appropriate law enforcement agencies and the sentencing court, if applicable, that there is probable cause to believe that an offender has escaped from custody.

Source: L. 93: Entire article R&RE, p. 716, § 1, effective July 1. L. 95: Entire section amended, p. 81, § 3, effective March 23. L. 99: (1) amended, p. 661, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2001: (1)(b)(II) repealed, p. 527, § 2, effective May 22. L. 2002: (1)(b)(I) amended, p. 1508, § 170, effective October 1.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 17-27-108 as it existed prior to 1993.

Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 2002 act amending subsection (1)(b)(I), see section 1 of chapter 318, Session Laws of Colorado 2002.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1980–2016 · leading case: McKinney v. Kautzky, 801 P.2d 508 (Colo. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McKinney v. Kautzky, 801 P.2d 508 (Colo. 1990). · cites it 36× “” We find nothing in section 17-27-106 to indicate that sentencing under section 16-11-309(2) is a prerequisite to a finding that an offender falls under part (B) of that section.”
Romero v. People, 179 P.3d 984 (Colo. 2007). · cites it 3× “2000) (holding that section 17-27-106 applies to both residential and nonresidential community corrections programs).”
Nowak v. Suthers, 320 P.3d 340 (Colo. 2014). · cites it 2× “Had the General Assembly intended that, for purposes of community corrections placement, multiple sentences not be combined, we assume such language could have been included in the 1987 amendments to § 17-27-106(4)(a).”
People v. Wilhite, 817 P.2d 1017 (Colo. 1991). · cites it 4× “Second, an offender may be placed into a community corrections facility by transitional placement, section 17-27-106(4)(a), 8A C.R.S. (1986).”
People v. Santisteven, 868 P.2d 415 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 6× “Had the General Assembly intended that, for purposes of community corrections placement, multiple sentences not be combined, we assume such language could have been included in the 1987 amendments to § 17-27-106(4)(a). No such language exists.”
People v. Romero, 197 P.3d 302 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “The executive director of the DOC must designate staff to maintain jurisdiction over offenders placed in community corrections.”
People v. Forester, 1 P.3d 758 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “Section 17-27-106(1)(a), C.R.S.1999, provides: If an offender fails to remain within the extended limits of such offender's confinement or placement or fails to return within the time prescribed to any community corrections program to which such offender was assigned or…”
People v. Lanzieri, 25 P.3d 1170 (Colo. 2001). · cites it 3× “(2000), and section 17-27-106, 6 CRS. (1999). The trial court subsequently granted Lanzieri's motion for judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict, finding that he could not be convicted of escape because he had not been in lawful confinement or custody.”
Wilson v. People, 747 P.2d 638 (Colo. 1987). · cites it 2× “Alternatively, an offender may be placed in a community corrections program as a condition of probation, § 16-ll-204(2)(c), 8A C.”
People v. Padilla, 113 P.3d 1260 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Our review of these authorities leads to the conclusion that the public policy of this state is to broadly define “in custody or confinement” and to criminalize conduct whereby a person absents himself or herself from the controls placed upon him or her by the state.”
People v. Abdul, 935 P.2d 4 (Colo. 1997). · cites it 2× “(1986); (2) transitional placement from a DOC facility pursuant to section 17-27-106(4)(a), 8A C.R.S. (1986); or (3) placement as a condition to probation pursuant to section 16-ll-204(2)(c), 8A C.”
People v. Nix, 610 P.2d 1088 (Colo. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “In May 1978, the Department of Institutions, see § 17-27-106(4)(a), C.R.S. *1091 1973 (1978 Repl.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-27-106(1)(a) — 2 cases
Romero v. People, 179 P.3d 984 (Colo. 2007). “2000) (holding that section 17-27-106 applies to both residential and nonresidential community corrections programs).”
People v. Forester, 1 P.3d 758 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000). “Section 17-27-106(1)(a), C.R.S.1999, provides: If an offender fails to remain within the extended limits of such offender's confinement or placement or fails to return within the time prescribed to any community corrections program to which such offender was assigned or…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-27-106(4)(a) — 8 cases
Nowak v. Suthers, 320 P.3d 340 (Colo. 2014). “Had the General Assembly intended that, for purposes of community corrections placement, multiple sentences not be combined, we assume such language could have been included in the 1987 amendments to § 17-27-106(4)(a).”
People v. Wilhite, 817 P.2d 1017 (Colo. 1991). “Second, an offender may be placed into a community corrections facility by transitional placement, section 17-27-106(4)(a), 8A C.R.S. (1986).”
McKinney v. Kautzky, 801 P.2d 508 (Colo. 1990). “” We find nothing in section 17-27-106 to indicate that sentencing under section 16-11-309(2) is a prerequisite to a finding that an offender falls under part (B) of that section.”
People v. Abdul, 935 P.2d 4 (Colo. 1997). “(1986); (2) transitional placement from a DOC facility pursuant to section 17-27-106(4)(a), 8A C.R.S. (1986); or (3) placement as a condition to probation pursuant to section 16-ll-204(2)(c), 8A C.”
People v. Nix, 610 P.2d 1088 (Colo. Ct. App. 1980). “In May 1978, the Department of Institutions, see § 17-27-106(4)(a), C.R.S. *1091 1973 (1978 Repl.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-27-106(4)(a)(I) — 1 case
McKinney v. Kautzky, 801 P.2d 508 (Colo. 1990). “” We find nothing in section 17-27-106 to indicate that sentencing under section 16-11-309(2) is a prerequisite to a finding that an offender falls under part (B) of that section.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-27-106(4)(a)(II) — 2 cases
Nowak v. Suthers, 320 P.3d 340 (Colo. 2014). “Had the General Assembly intended that, for purposes of community corrections placement, multiple sentences not be combined, we assume such language could have been included in the 1987 amendments to § 17-27-106(4)(a).”
People v. Santisteven, 868 P.2d 415 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). “Had the General Assembly intended that, for purposes of community corrections placement, multiple sentences not be combined, we assume such language could have been included in the 1987 amendments to § 17-27-106(4)(a). No such language exists.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-27-106(4)(a)(II)(A) — 2 cases
McKinney v. Kautzky, 801 P.2d 508 (Colo. 1990). “” We find nothing in section 17-27-106 to indicate that sentencing under section 16-11-309(2) is a prerequisite to a finding that an offender falls under part (B) of that section.”
People v. Santisteven, 868 P.2d 415 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). “Had the General Assembly intended that, for purposes of community corrections placement, multiple sentences not be combined, we assume such language could have been included in the 1987 amendments to § 17-27-106(4)(a). No such language exists.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-27-106(4)(a)(II)(B) — 2 cases
McKinney v. Kautzky, 801 P.2d 508 (Colo. 1990). “” We find nothing in section 17-27-106 to indicate that sentencing under section 16-11-309(2) is a prerequisite to a finding that an offender falls under part (B) of that section.”
People v. Santisteven, 868 P.2d 415 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). “Had the General Assembly intended that, for purposes of community corrections placement, multiple sentences not be combined, we assume such language could have been included in the 1987 amendments to § 17-27-106(4)(a). No such language exists.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-27-106(4)(c) — 1 case
McKinney v. Kautzky, 801 P.2d 508 (Colo. 1990). “” We find nothing in section 17-27-106 to indicate that sentencing under section 16-11-309(2) is a prerequisite to a finding that an offender falls under part (B) of that section.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-27-106(II)(A) — 1 case
McKinney v. Kautzky, 801 P.2d 508 (Colo. 1990). “” We find nothing in section 17-27-106 to indicate that sentencing under section 16-11-309(2) is a prerequisite to a finding that an offender falls under part (B) of that section.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-27-106(II)(B) — 1 case
McKinney v. Kautzky, 801 P.2d 508 (Colo. 1990). “” We find nothing in section 17-27-106 to indicate that sentencing under section 16-11-309(2) is a prerequisite to a finding that an offender falls under part (B) of that section.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-27-106(l)(a) — 1 case
People v. Padilla, 113 P.3d 1260 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). “Our review of these authorities leads to the conclusion that the public policy of this state is to broadly define “in custody or confinement” and to criminalize conduct whereby a person absents himself or herself from the controls placed upon him or her by the state.”
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.