PEOPLE OF MI V ROBERT LEE LAWRENCE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
FOR PUBLICATION
June 5, 2001
9:00 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 220598
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 99-164702-FH
ROBERT LEE LAWRENCE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Updated Copy
August 17, 2001
Before: McDonald, P.J., and Murphy and Meter, JJ.
MURPHY, J.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of possession with intent to deliver less
than fifty grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7401(1), (2)(a)(iv), and of escape from lawful custody,
MCL 750.197a. The trial court sentenced defendant as an habitual offender, third offense, MCL
769.11, to thirty-four months to forty years' imprisonment on the possession with intent to deliver
conviction. On the escape conviction, the court imposed a consecutive sentence of 165 days in
jail and gave defendant credit for that time served. Defendant now appeals as of right,
challenging only his conviction of escape from lawful custody. Because we conclude that
defendant was not "under any criminal process" when he attempted to flee from police
transportation upon his arrest, we vacate the misdemeanor conviction of escape from lawful
custody.1
1
Defendant additionally argues that reversal of this misdemeanor conviction should include, as
an appropriate remedy, remand for resentencing on the possession with intent to deliver
conviction. Defendant does not, however, independently challenge the proportionality of that
sentence. Thus, although referencing this request for resentencing in his statement of questions
presented, we conclude that defendant has inadequately briefed the issue. Moreover, defendant
has failed to comply with the requirement of MCR 7.212(C)(7) that he submit to this Court a
copy of his presentence report. Despite these procedural inadequacies, we briefly address the
issue to note that we do not order remand for resentencing because we are not persuaded that
defendant's conviction of, and sentence to time served for, the misdemeanor offense of escape
from lawful custody had any effect on the sentence imposed by the court for the possession with
(continued…)
-1-
Police officers, conducting surveillance of a housing project because of complaints
regarding narcotics trafficking, approached defendant and a second individual after the two were
observed making a suspicious exchange. Both men ran, but the officers gave chase, caught them,
and returned to the location of the initial approach. On the ground where defendant had been
standing, the officers found two individually wrapped rocks of suspected crack cocaine. The
rocks field-tested positive for cocaine, and the officers arrested defendant, handcuffed him, and
placed him in a police car for transport to the police station. Just as the car began to move,
defendant opened the car door and "took off running." The officers again gave chase, caught
defendant approximately two hundred yards from the car, and returned him to the car, this time
locking the door.
The sole issue we must decide is whether these uncontested facts support conviction of
escape from lawful custody. Defendant argues that his action of fleeing the police car is not
punishable under MCL 750.197a because no court had yet issued an order affecting his custody
and, thus, he did not escape from lawful custody "under any criminal process." The prosecution,
meanwhile, contends that this case is controlled by People v Taylor, 238 Mich App 259; 604
NW2d 783 (1999), wherein a similar claim was considered and rejected when the Court
construed a companion statute, MCL 750.197(2).
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case, this Court views the
evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt. People
v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 515; 489 NW2d 748 (1992), amended 441 Mich 1201 (1992); People v
Vronko, 228 Mich App 649, 654; 579 NW2d 138 (1998). Statutory interpretation, however,
presents a question of law that we review de novo. People v Webb, 458 Mich 265, 274; 580
NW2d 884 (1998).
MCL 750.197a provides:
Any person who shall break or escape from lawful custody under any
criminal process, including periods while at large on bail, shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 1
year, or by a fine of not more than $500.00. [Emphasis added.]
In part because this case turns on construction of the phrase "under any criminal process," we
initially find, contrary to the prosecution's argument, that this case is not controlled by Taylor,
supra.2
(…continued)
intent to deliver conviction.
2
Taylor involved the construction of MCL 750.197(2), which did not use the critical phrase at
issue and instead provided:
(continued…)
-2-
In Taylor, supra at 260, the defendant was arrested, taken to the jail, and placed in a
holding cell. Before he was booked, he asked to use the bathroom. When the guard opened his
cell door, the defendant escaped. Id. The trial court ruled that individuals who have been
arrested on a felony warrant and placed in a holding cell in a jail are immune from prosecution
under subsection 197(2) until they are formally processed. However, this Court reversed, finding
that the defendant was "lawfully imprisoned in a jail" when he escaped. Id. at 262. This Court
additionally ruled that the fact that the defendant had not yet been processed was irrelevant
because he was not jailed for the purpose of being booked. "Rather, he was being held in jail
pending the commencement of the criminal process," which "logically includes examination,
arraignment, and possibly trial." Id. at 266. The circumstances presented in Taylor are factually
distinguishable from the instant case, and this Court's interpretation of strikingly different
statutory language does not assist our analysis of § 197a.
No reported cases in this state in fact construe the phrase "under any criminal process," as
it is used in MCL 750.197a. Moreover, the few cases that have considered § 197a have been
concerned, generally, with issues related to bail jumping. See, e.g., People v Williams, 243 Mich
App 333, 334-335; 620 NW2d 906 (2000); People v Pfeiffer, 177 Mich App 170, 172; 441
NW2d 65 (1989) (two cases in which this Court found the statute applicable to situations where
convicted defendants failed to appear for sentencing after being released on bond). Accordingly,
our analysis of the phrase "under any criminal process" must be governed by the rules of statutory
construction.
The primary goal of judicial interpretation of statutes is to give effect to the intent of the
Legislature. People v Morris, 450 Mich 316, 326; 537 NW2d 842 (1995); People v Stephan, 241
Mich App 482, 496; 616 NW2d 188 (2000). The first criterion in determining intent is the
specific language of the statute. People v Stone, 234 Mich App 117, 121; 593 NW2d 680 (1999).
If statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the court must enforce it as plainly written.
Morris, supra at 326. Statutory language is clear and unambiguous when reasonable minds
(…continued)
A person lawfully imprisoned in a jail or place of confinement established
by law, awaiting examination, trial, arraignment, or sentence for a felony; or after
sentence for a felony awaiting or during transfer to or from a prison, who breaks
the jail or place of confinement and escapes; who breaks the jail, although no
escape is actually made; who escapes; who leaves the jail or place of confinement
without being discharged from the jail or place of confinement by due process of
law; who breaks or escapes while in or being transferred to or from a courtroom or
court house, or a place where court is being held; or who attempts to break or
escape from the jail or place of confinement is guilty of a felony. A term of
imprisonment imposed for a violation of this subsection shall begin to run at the
expiration of any term of imprisonment imposed for the offense for which the
person was imprisoned at the time of the violation of this subsection.
-3-
could not differ with regard to its meaning. People v Armstrong, 212 Mich App 121, 123; 536
NW2d 789 (1995). However, if a statute is susceptible to more than one interpretation, the court
must engage in judicial construction and interpret the statute. Morris, supra at 326. The court
must access the object of the statute and the harm it was designed to remedy and apply a
reasonable construction that best accomplishes the purpose of the statute. People v Adair, 452
Mich 473, 479-480; 550 NW2d 505 (1996). Provisions of the Penal Code are construed
according to the fair import of their terms to effect the purpose of the statute. MCL 750.2;
Morris, supra at 327; Armstrong, supra at 127.
The phrase "under any criminal process" is not defined in the statute. Where the
Legislature has not expressly defined the terms used in a statute, a court may turn to dictionary
definitions for aid in construing the terms in accordance with their ordinary and generally
accepted meanings. People v Morey, 461 Mich 325, 330; 603 NW2d 250 (1999). The term
"process" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed), p 1222, as "[t]he proceedings in any
action or prosecution," or as "[a] summons or writ, esp. to appear or respond in court."3 The
meaning of "criminal process" is more specifically set forth as "[a] process (such as an arrest
warrant) that issues to compel a person to answer for a crime."
Consistent with these definitions, many cases use the term "criminal process" when
referring to criminal court proceedings, i.e., the prosecution of a defendant, see, e.g., Taylor,
supra; People v Solomon (Amended Opinion), 220 Mich App 527, 536; 560 NW2d 651 (1996);
People v Bryant, 80 Mich App 428, 437; 264 NW2d 13 (1978), while many statutes use the term
"criminal process" when referencing a summons, see, e.g., MCL 767.92(3)(c); MCL
324.1606(1); MCL 3.258(1). Construing the phrase "under any criminal process" in accord with
these conceptualizations, we hold that defendant was not under criminal process when he made
his attempt to flee the police car after his arrest without a warrant.4
At the time of defendant's action, no court had acquired or exercised jurisdiction over
him, nor had any court compelled his appearance through the issuance of a summons. Thus,
notwithstanding the fact that this was a lawful arrest without a warrant, criminal proceedings
stamped with a court's approval had not yet been initiated against defendant. Our conclusion that
the statute refers to individuals who are, in one form or another, already under court order is
supported by the additional language of § 197a, which indicates that "under any criminal
3
Similarly, Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (2d ed, 1995), p 698, identifies the
term "process" as having two general meanings, the first being the proceedings in any action or
prosecution and the second, the summons by which a person is made to appear in court.
4
We limit this holding to the situation herein presented, and although we express no opinion
regarding the appropriateness of application of this statute to like conduct following an arrest
effectuated pursuant to an arrest warrant, we do note that as commonly occurs, it would be
appropriate to charge individuals under either circumstance with the offense of resisting or
obstructing a police officer, MCL 750.479.
-4-
process" includes "periods while at large on bail."5 Accordingly, defendant's conviction of, and
sentence for, possession with intent to deliver is affirmed; defendant's conviction of escape from
lawful custody under any criminal process, pursuant to MCL 750.197a, is vacated.
Affirmed in part, and vacated in part.
McDonald, P.J., concurred.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
5
The location of the statute within title 28 provides additional support for the conclusion that it
was not intended to proscribe acts of escape by individuals newly arrested, but over whom no
court had yet exercised jurisdiction. MCL 750.197a is found in chapter XXXII of the Penal
Code, a chapter entitled "ESCAPES, RESCUES, JAIL AND PRISON BREAKING."
-5-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.