Wyo. Stat. § 6-5-206
Escape from official detention; penalties.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WY-LEGwyoleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) A person commits a crime if he escapes from official
detention. Escape is:
(i) A felony punishable by imprisonment for not more
than ten (10) years, if the detention is the result of a
conviction for a felony;
(ii) A felony punishable by imprisonment for not more
than three (3) years, a fine of not more than three thousand
dollars ($3,000.00), or both, if the detention is the result of:
(A) A conviction for a misdemeanor; or
(B) An arrest or charge for a crime.Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: DeSpain v. State
DeSpain v. State (1993)
“§ 6-5-206 (1988), or is the State required to invoke WYO.”
Jones v. State (2006)
“What remains to be determined is the exact nature of the extended limits of confinement beyond which Jones could not go without authorization.”
Martin v. State (2007)
“§ 6-5-206. Escape from official detention; penalties.”
Phillips v. State (1988)
“W.S. 6-5-206 provides: (a) A person commits a crime if he escapes from official detention.”
Peper v. State (1989)
“That statute, W.S. 6-5-206, provides that “[a] person commits a crime if he escapes from official detention.”
Six v. State (2008)
“[T7] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-206 (2)08) (LexisNexis 2007) provides: § 6-5-206.”
Major v. State (2004)
“[¶ 4] An Information dated December 10, 2000, charged Appellant with one count of escape in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-206 (a) (LexisNexis 2003).”
Angerhofer v. State (1988)
“, provides: “(a) An offender or an inmate is deemed guilty of escape from official detention and shall be punished as provided by W.S. 6-5-206(a)(i) if, without proper authorization, he: "(i) Fails to remain within the extended limits of his confinement or to return within the…”
Harlow v. State (2005)
“Each of those crimes is based upon Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-206 (a) (LexisNexis 2003), which states that “[a] person commits a crime if he escapes from official detention.”
Kupec v. State (1992)
“’s home electronic monitoring system, while admittedly being more intense than typical probation, still constitutes probation supervision, thus foreclosing a charge of escape pursuant to § 6-5-206. Cf. Peper v. State, 768 P.2d 26 (Wyo.”
Matthew Harl Majhanovich v. The State of Wyoming (2021)
“Majhanovich with escape from official detention in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-206 (a) (LexisNexis 2021).”
Oien v. State (1990)
“[1] W.S. 6-5-206 provides in pertinent part: (a) A person commits a crime if he escapes from official detention.”
— Wyo. Stat. § 6-5-206(a) — 8 cases
YellowBear v. State (1994)
Kupec v. State (1992)
“’s home electronic monitoring system, while admittedly being more intense than typical probation, still constitutes probation supervision, thus foreclosing a charge of escape pursuant to § 6-5-206. Cf. Peper v. State, 768 P.2d 26 (Wyo.”
Capshaw v. State (1998)
— Wyo. Stat. § 6-5-206(a)(i) — 12 cases
Jones v. State (2006)
“What remains to be determined is the exact nature of the extended limits of confinement beyond which Jones could not go without authorization.”
Angerhofer v. State (1988)
“, provides: “(a) An offender or an inmate is deemed guilty of escape from official detention and shall be punished as provided by W.S. 6-5-206(a)(i) if, without proper authorization, he: "(i) Fails to remain within the extended limits of his confinement or to return within the…”
Peper v. State (1989)
“That statute, W.S. 6-5-206, provides that “[a] person commits a crime if he escapes from official detention.”
Prejean v. State (1990)
Despain v. State (1989)
— Wyo. Stat. § 6-5-206(a)(ii) — 1 case
Martin v. State (2007)
“§ 6-5-206. Escape from official detention; penalties.”
— Wyo. Stat. § 6-5-206(a)(ii)(A) — 1 case
Young v. State (1995)
— Wyo. Stat. § 6-5-206(a)(ii)(B) — 1 case
Phillips v. State (1988)
“W.S. 6-5-206 provides: (a) A person commits a crime if he escapes from official detention.”
— Wyo. Stat. § 6-5-206(a)(l) — 1 case
Smith v. State (1997)
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.