We conclude that [Appellant’s actions] constituted a substantial deviation from his work-release program to establish the offense of escape where, although Appellant maintained contact with his work and the prison, he never went to work. Moreover, Appellant also stipulated that after he left the prison, he went to his girlfriend’s house for one hour, and left that location where his whereabouts were unknown for approximately three hours. Com v. Waugaman, No. 170 MDA 2017 (July 13, 2017).


DISCLAIMER – The information contained in this article is for general guidance on the subject matter only. The application and impact of laws can vary widely based on the specific facts involved. Given the changing nature of laws, rules and regulations, and the inherent hazards of electronic communication, there may be delays, omissions or inaccuracies in information in this article. Case summaries are primarily excerpted directly from the decisions authored by the Courts. The decisions are cited and linked and the reader is encouraged to read the entire decision. Accordingly, the information in this article is provided with the understanding that the authors and publishers are not herein engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice and services. As such, it should NOT be used as a substitute for consultation with a McMahon Winters Soto-Ortiz Law Firm attorney. Before making any decision or taking any action, you should always consult with a McMahon Winters Soto-Ortiz Law Firm attorney.