575.210. Escape or attempted escape from confinement — penalties. — 1. A person commits the offense of escape or attempted escape from confinement if, while being held in confinement after arrest for any offense, while serving a sentence after conviction for any offense, or while at an institutional treatment center operated by the department of corrections as a condition of probation or parole, he or she escapes or attempts to escape from confinement.
2. The offense of escape or attempted escape from confinement in the department of corrections is a class B felony.
3. The offense of escape or attempted escape from confinement in a county or private jail or city or county correctional facility is a class E felony unless:
(1) The offense is facilitated by striking or beating any person, in which case it is a class D felony;
(2) The offense is committed by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument or by holding any person as hostage, in which case it is a class A felony.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
71
cases, 1980–2018 · leading case:
Holloway v. State, 989 S.W.2d 216 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
Holloway v. State, 989 S.W.2d 216 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 7× “The defendant, Mike Holloway, was charged with the class A felony of attempted escape from confinement pursuant to § 575.210, RSMo 1994. The state amended the information by interlineation to the class D felony of attempted escape from confinement.”
State v. Cooper, 712 S.W.2d 27 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 4× “Section 575.210, RSMo 1978 reads: 1. A person commits the crime of escape from confinement if, while being held in confinement after arrest for any crime, or while serving a sentence after conviction for any crime, he escapes from confinement.”
State v. Bohannon, 793 S.W.2d 497 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 8× “At the time of the occurrence the crime of escape from confinement was defined by § 575.210, RSMo 1986. 1 It read, in pertinent part: “1.”
State v. Skaggs, 74 S.W.3d 282 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “090, RSMo 2000, 1 and escape from confinement, section 575.210. Defendant was sentenced consecutively to eight years for forgery and seven years for escape from confinement to be served in the Missouri Department of Corrections.”
State v. Leady, 679 S.W.2d 292 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 7× “Defendant was convicted of escape from confinement, a violation of § 575.210, RSMo.1978, and sentenced as a persistent offender to ten years imprisonment.”
State v. McClurg, 543 S.W.3d 78 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 3× “200 )." The record clearly shows that Defendant was in fact charged with, and the jury found him guilty of, escape from confinement , a similar yet distinct class D felony, defined under § 575.”
State v. Arnold, 216 S.W.3d 203 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “Arnold (“Defendant”) was convicted following a jury trial of the class A felony of attempted escape from confinement, in violation of § 575.210, 1 the unclassified felony of armed criminal action, in violation of § 571.”
State v. Hedrick, 637 S.W.2d 306 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 6× “Defendant Hedrick was convicted upon a jury trial of escape from confinement, § 575.210, RSMo 1978. As a persistent offender, § 558.”
State v. Dowdy, 774 S.W.2d 504 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 4× “Escape was a misdemeanor unless enhanced to a class A felony by the use of a deadly weapon, § 575.210. Yet the court held the defendant was in the same action properly convicted and punished for armed criminal action based upon that use of a deadly weapon.”
State v. Foerstel, 674 S.W.2d 583 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “The first count was for escape (§ 575.210, RSMo 1978) 1 for which the jury sentenced appellant to 5 years; Count II was kidnapping (§ 565.”
Leady v. State, 714 S.W.2d 221 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Movant was convicted, after a jury trial, of escape from confinement, a violation of § 575.210, RSMo 1978, and sentenced as a persistent offender to ten years imprisonment.”
State v. Kirksey, 658 S.W.2d 60 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 4× “Defendant appeals from a conviction for escape by means of a dangerous instrument, § 575.210, RSMo 1978, and first degree robbery, § 569.”
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.