Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-605 (2026)
Escape
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) It is an offense for any lawfully confined person arrested for, charged with, or found guilty of a civil or criminal offense to escape from a penal institution, as defined in § 39-16-601.
- (b)
- (1) A person commits the offense of escape who is in the lawful custody of a law enforcement officer and knowingly escapes the officer's custody.
- (2) As used in subdivision (b)(1), "lawful custody" means a person has been taken, seized or detained by a law enforcement officer either by handcuffing, restraining or any other method by which a reasonable person would believe places the person in custody and that otherwise deprives the person's freedom of action in a significant way.
- (c)
- (1) A violation of subsection (a) is:
- (A) A Class A misdemeanor if the person was being held for a misdemeanor or civil offense; and
- (B) A Class E felony if the person was being held for a felony.
- (2) A violation of subsection (b) is a Class A misdemeanor.
- (1) A violation of subsection (a) is:
- (d) Any sentence received for a violation of this section shall be ordered to be served consecutively to the sentence being served or sentence received for the charge for which the person was being held at the time of the escape.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1990, ch. 980, § 15; 2007, ch. 46, §§ 1, 2; 2009, ch. 241, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: State v. James, 81 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2002).
State v. James, 81 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2002). “Under the felony escape statute, Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-605, the State sought to prove, as an element of the offense, that the defendant was being held for a felony at the time of his escape.”
State v. Walls, 62 S.W.3d 119 (Tenn. 2001). “We granted this appeal to determine the following issues: (1) whether a defendant’s flight from the rear of a patrol car constitutes the offense of *120 escape from a penal institution under Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-605; (2) whether the escape statute is unconstitutionally vague;…”
Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007). “Summers contends that his concurrent sentence for misdemeanor escape was imposed in direct contravention of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-16-605(c) and Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3)(B).”
David Cantrell v. Joe Easterling, Warden, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011). “See also Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-16-605 (d) (2010); 40-20-111(b) (2006); 40-28-123(a) (2006).”
State v. Campbell, 245 S.W.3d 331 (Tenn. 2008). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-605(a) (2006). 2 An “escape” is the “un *337 authorized departure from custody or failure to return to custody following temporary leave for a specific purpose or limited period.”
Summers v. Fortner, 267 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008). “” T.C.A. § 39-16-605(c) (2006). Similarly, Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 provides that when a defendant has multiple sentences and “the law requires consecutive sentences, the sentence shall be consecutive whether the judgment explicitly so orders or not.”
Hogan v. Mills, 168 S.W.3d 753 (Tenn. 2005). “Sub-part (B) tracks Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-16-605(c) (2003), which requires that a sentence resulting from a conviction for escape from a penal institution “be served consecutively to the sentence being served or sentence received for the charge for which the person…”
State v. Ferrell, 277 S.W.3d 372 (Tenn. 2009). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-605 (1997). For reasons not apparent in the record, there was a period of delay before defense counsel, on May 3, 2003, sought an evaluation of the Defendant for the purpose of determining whether he was competent to stand trial.”
United States v. Goodman, 519 F.3d 310 (6th Cir. 2008). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-605(a). Separately, Tennessee law states that a “ ‘[p]enal institution’ includes any institution or facility used to house or detain a person.”
State v. Wingard, 891 S.W.2d 628 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-605; State v. Mansell, 713 S.”
State v. Kendrick, 10 S.W.3d 650 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-605 . The underlying rationale for the decision was that a community corrections office did not qualify as a penal institution.”
Bentley v. State, 938 S.W.2d 706 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “The petitioner pled guilty on June 15,1994, to escape from a penal institution in violation of T.C.A. § 39-16-605 (1991). At the time of the alleged escape offense, the defendant was serving a ten year Community Corrections sentence for previous drug offenses.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-605(a) — 7 cases
State v. Campbell, 245 S.W.3d 331 (Tenn. 2008). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-605(a) (2006). 2 An “escape” is the “un *337 authorized departure from custody or failure to return to custody following temporary leave for a specific purpose or limited period.”
United States v. Goodman, 519 F.3d 310 (6th Cir. 2008). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-605(a). Separately, Tennessee law states that a “ ‘[p]enal institution’ includes any institution or facility used to house or detain a person.”
State v. Wingard, 891 S.W.2d 628 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-605; State v. Mansell, 713 S.”
State v. Michael Holmes, 995 S.W.2d 135 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998).
State v. Anderson, 894 S.W.2d 320 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-605(b)(2) — 1 case
State v. James, 81 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2002). “Under the felony escape statute, Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-605, the State sought to prove, as an element of the offense, that the defendant was being held for a felony at the time of his escape.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-605(c) — 11 cases
Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007). “Summers contends that his concurrent sentence for misdemeanor escape was imposed in direct contravention of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-16-605(c) and Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3)(B).”
David Cantrell v. Joe Easterling, Warden, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011). “See also Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-16-605 (d) (2010); 40-20-111(b) (2006); 40-28-123(a) (2006).”
Hogan v. Mills, 168 S.W.3d 753 (Tenn. 2005). “Sub-part (B) tracks Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-16-605(c) (2003), which requires that a sentence resulting from a conviction for escape from a penal institution “be served consecutively to the sentence being served or sentence received for the charge for which the person…”
Summers v. Fortner, 267 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008). “” T.C.A. § 39-16-605(c) (2006). Similarly, Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 provides that when a defendant has multiple sentences and “the law requires consecutive sentences, the sentence shall be consecutive whether the judgment explicitly so orders or not.”
State of Tennessee v. Mitchell Eads (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-605(d) — 4 cases
State of Tennessee v. Earl Jerome Lee, Jr. (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020).
Mike Settle a/k/a Michael Dewayne Settle v. Jerry Lester, Warden, State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014).
Mike Settle v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Mike Settle (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-605(e) — 1 case
Summers v. Fortner, 267 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008). “” T.C.A. § 39-16-605(c) (2006). Similarly, Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 provides that when a defendant has multiple sentences and “the law requires consecutive sentences, the sentence shall be consecutive whether the judgment explicitly so orders or not.”
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.