Va. Code » Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally » Chapter 10. Crimes Against the Administration of Justice » Article 7. Escape of, Communications with and Deliveries to Prisoners
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-479 (2026)

Escape without force or violence or setting fire to jail; penalties

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Except as provided in subsection B, any person lawfully confined in jail or lawfully in the custody of any court, officer of the court, or law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 18.2-57, for violation of his probation or parole or on a charge or conviction of a misdemeanor who escapes, other than by force or violence or by setting fire to the jail, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

B. Any person lawfully confined in jail or lawfully in the custody of any court, officer of the court, or law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 18.2-57, on a charge or conviction of a felony who escapes, other than by force or violence or by setting fire to the jail, is guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Code 1950, § 18.1-290; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1985, c. 555; 2005, c. 573; 2025, cc. 38, 41.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: White v. Commonwealth, 591 S.E.2d 662 (Va. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
White v. Commonwealth, 591 S.E.2d 662 (Va. 2004). · cites it 31× “Initially, we note that the term “custody” is not defined by Code § 18.2-479, and heretofore we have not addressed the meaning of that term in the context of that statute.”
Castell v. Commonwealth, 461 S.E.2d 438 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 30× “2d 16 (1995), I would hold that Castell was never in the officer's custody and, thus, could not have violated Code § 18.2-479. The federal cases upon which the majority relies have no bearing upon the interpretation to be given the Virginia statute.”
Coles v. Commonwealth, 605 S.E.2d 784 (Va. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 14× “Code § 18.2-479 is divided into two subsections.”
Bennett v. Commonwealth, 546 S.E.2d 209 (Va. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “2-57(c), and one count of felony attempt to escape, in violation of Code §§ 18.2-479 and 18.2-26. The jury recommended, and the court imposed, a sentence of six months in jail for each assault count and a $1 fine for the attempted escape count.”
Davis v. Commonwealth, 608 S.E.2d 482 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 12× “In finding the evidence insufficient to sustain White’s conviction, the court emphasized the necessity of immediate control: “[I]t is clear that for purposes of prohibiting an escape under Code § 18.2-479, 2 the General Assembly must have intended that the term ‘custody" would…”
Hall v. Com., 701 S.E.2d 68 (Va. 2010). · cites it 8× “" [2] Construing the requirement *71 of "custody" found in Code § 18.2-479, [3] this Court has stated that "the inquiry is whether the officer, with proper authority.”
Thomas v. Commonwealth, 690 S.E.2d 298 (Va. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 12× “Jamar Eric Thomas (“Thomas”) appeals his conviction for escape from custody on a charge or conviction of a felony, in violation of Code § 18.2-479(B). On appeal, Thomas contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction.”
Cavell v. Commonwealth, 506 S.E.2d 552 (Va. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “Cavell, was convicted of escape in violation of Code § 18.2-479. On appeal, he contends the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.”
Maurice Kevin Williams v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 514 S.E.2d 381 (Va. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 34× “Williams (“appellant”) appeals his bench trial conviction of misdemeanor escape in violation of Code § 18.2-479, claiming the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike the Commonwealth’s evidence.”
Castell v. Commonwealth, 454 S.E.2d 16 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 6× “This criminal appeal is from a conviction of escape from the custody of a law enforcement officer without the use of force or violence in violation of Code § 18.2-479. We hold that the defendant was not in custody, and therefore, could not be convicted of escape.”
Henry v. Commonwealth, 462 S.E.2d 578 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “Although Castell was construing Code § 18.2-479(B), [1] the language of the two sections is not significantly different.”
Hall v. Commonwealth, 686 S.E.2d 554 (Va. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “Although White involved Code § 18.2-479 (escape from custody without force or violence), not Code § 18.”
Show all 40 citing cases →
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-479(A): 4 cases
Coles v. Commonwealth, 605 S.E.2d 784 (Va. Ct. App. 2004). “Code § 18.2-479 is divided into two subsections.”
White v. Commonwealth, 591 S.E.2d 662 (Va. 2004). “Initially, we note that the term “custody” is not defined by Code § 18.2-479, and heretofore we have not addressed the meaning of that term in the context of that statute.”
Maurice Kevin Williams v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 514 S.E.2d 381 (Va. Ct. App. 1999). “Williams (“appellant”) appeals his bench trial conviction of misdemeanor escape in violation of Code § 18.2-479, claiming the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike the Commonwealth’s evidence.”
Latif Racquel Khaliq v. Commonwealth of VA (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-479(B): 22 cases
White v. Commonwealth, 591 S.E.2d 662 (Va. 2004). “Initially, we note that the term “custody” is not defined by Code § 18.2-479, and heretofore we have not addressed the meaning of that term in the context of that statute.”
Castell v. Commonwealth, 461 S.E.2d 438 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). “2d 16 (1995), I would hold that Castell was never in the officer's custody and, thus, could not have violated Code § 18.2-479. The federal cases upon which the majority relies have no bearing upon the interpretation to be given the Virginia statute.”
Thomas v. Commonwealth, 690 S.E.2d 298 (Va. Ct. App. 2010). “Jamar Eric Thomas (“Thomas”) appeals his conviction for escape from custody on a charge or conviction of a felony, in violation of Code § 18.2-479(B). On appeal, Thomas contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction.”
Coles v. Commonwealth, 605 S.E.2d 784 (Va. Ct. App. 2004). “Code § 18.2-479 is divided into two subsections.”
Davis v. Commonwealth, 608 S.E.2d 482 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). “In finding the evidence insufficient to sustain White’s conviction, the court emphasized the necessity of immediate control: “[I]t is clear that for purposes of prohibiting an escape under Code § 18.2-479, 2 the General Assembly must have intended that the term ‘custody" would…”
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.