Removal of monitoring device. A. It is unlawful for any person, after being lawfully arrested or detained by a peace officer, to escape or attempt to escape from such peace officer. B. Any person who escapes or attempts to escape after being lawfully arrested or detained for custody for a misdemeanor offense shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. C. Any person who escapes or attempts to escape after being lawfully arrested or detained for custody for a felony offense shall be guilty of a Class D2 felony offense and shall be punished by imprisonment as provided for in subsections B through F of Section 20O of this title. D. It is unlawful for any person admitted to bail or released on recognizance, bond, or undertaking for appearance before any magistrate or court of the State of Oklahoma, and required as a condition of such release from detention to wear any electronic monitoring device on the body of the person to remove such device without authorization from the court. For purposes of this subsection, any person charged with a misdemeanor offense who removes such device without authorization from the court shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and any person charged with a felony offense who removes such device without authorization from the court shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a Class D3 felony offense and shall be punished by imprisonment as provided for in subsections B through F of Section 20P of this title. Added by Laws 1981, c. 163, § 1. Amended by Laws 1997, c. 133, § 195, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 2010, c. 226, § 4, eff. Nov. 1, 2010; Laws 2025, c. 486, § 593, eff. Jan. 1, 2026. NOTE: Laws 1998, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 2, § 23 amended the effective date of Laws 1997, c. 133, § 195 from July 1, 1998, to July 1, 1999.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 1987–2020 · leading case:
Brown v. State, 743 P.2d 133 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
Brown v. State, 743 P.2d 133 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Appellant’s primary argument is that 21 O.S.1981, § 444 distinguishes between misdemeanor and felony escapes from lawful custody, and because the escape here was at most a misdemeanor, an instruction on misdemeanor-manslaughter under 21 O.”
Newman v. State, 2020 OK CR 14, 466 P.3d 574.
“Appellant's primary argument is that 21 O.S. 1981 § 444 distinguishes between misdemeanor and felony escapes from lawful custody, and because the escape here was at most a misdemeanor, an instruction on misdemeanor-manslaughter under 21 O.”
Tyler v. State, 777 P.2d 1352 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “OPINION PARKS, Presiding Judge: Appellant, John Elwood Tyler, was tried by jury and convicted of Attempted Escape *1353 from Lawful Custody (21 O.S.1981, § 444) After Former Conviction of Two Felonies (21 O.”
Moore v. State, 736 P.2d 996 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “He admits that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for escape from the custody of a law enforcement officer, 21 O.S.1981, § 444, but argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for escape from a county jail under 21 O.”
Kolberg v. State, 925 P.2d 66 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “21 O.S.1991, § 444. In Tyler v. State, 777 P.”
Turner v. State, 786 P.2d 1251 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990).
“1981, § 645), Attempted Escape From the County Jail (21 O.S.1981, § 444) and Kidnapping for Purposes of Extortion (21 O.”
Hill v. State, 745 P.2d 410 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
“Appellant was charged and convicted under 21 O.S.1981, § 444: A. It is unlawful for any person, after being lawfully arrested or detained by a police officer, to escape or attempt to escape from such peace officer.”
Douglas v. State, 795 P.2d 1070 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990).
“Appellant reasons that the charge of Escape from Lawful Custody, 21 O.S.1981, § 444, is analogous to the charge of Escape from a Penal Institution under 21 O.”
A.L.G. v. State, 736 P.2d 521 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Title 21 O.S.1981, § 444 is the applicable statute on attempting to escape arrest or detention, and provides: A.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 444(A): 1 case
A.L.G. v. State, 736 P.2d 521 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
“Title 21 O.S.1981, § 444 is the applicable statute on attempting to escape arrest or detention, and provides: A.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 444(C): 1 case
Kolberg v. State, 925 P.2d 66 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996).
“21 O.S.1991, § 444. In Tyler v. State, 777 P.”
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.