Login | June 09, 2026
5th District rules woman who was released on bond cannot be convicted of escape
JESSICA SCHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: May 22, 2013
A defendant cannot be charged with escape if he or she was not under detention, as defined by the Ohio Revised Code, at the time of the alleged offense, the 5th District Court of Appeals recently ruled.
In a 2-1 opinion, the appellate panel held that a woman was wrongfully convicted of escape and her indictment on the charge should have been dismissed.
Heather Thornsbury argued at trial and on appeal that she could not be charged with escape because she was released on bond prior to her alleged offense.
“Because Thornsbury was released on bond at the time the state alleges she escaped, she was not under ‘detention’ as required by the statute. Furthermore, although she was initially confined in the county jail following her arrest, her detention ended after she posted bond and was released. Therefore, the state could not prosecute her under R.C. 2921.34(A)(1) for escape,” 5th District Judge William Harsha wrote for the court.
Case summary states that Thornsbury was initially arrested for child endangerment and taken to the county jail, where she was later released on bond.
Thornsbury ultimately pleaded guilty and the Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas sentenced her to 36 months in prison.
However, the common pleas court continued her bond and ordered her to report to the county jail in December 2011.
Thornsbury failed to report to the jail on the set date and did not arrive until February 2012.
For her late arrival, the state charged her with escape and she pleaded not guilty.
Thornsbury argued that the facts in the indictment were insufficient to support a conviction and moved to dismiss.
After the trial court denied her motion, she pleaded no contest and was sentenced to an additional 24 months in prison.
On appeal to the 5th District, Thornsbury again argued that the facts in the indictment were insufficient and her escape charge should have been dismissed.
“She claims that none of the situations in which a person can be under ‘detention’ as defined in R.C. 2921.01(E) apply to her, and therefore the trial court erred by failing to dismiss the indictment,” Harsha stated.
The appellate judges found the language of the statute governing escape requires that an offender must have been under lawful detention.
They further determined detention was defined as arrest, confinement subsequent to an arrest, or confinement of any person charged with or convicted of a crime.
“Therefore applying the statute as written, we agree with Thornsbury that none of the situations listed in R.C. 2921.01(E) cover the facts of this case,” Harsha wrote. “When she failed to report to the county jail, she was ‘out on bond,’ which the court continued after sentencing; but she was not confined, serving work release, or under any of the types of supervision listed in the statute.”
Finding that Thornsbury was not under detention, the judges ruled that she could not have been convicted of escape and the trial court should have dismissed the indictment.
“Accordingly, we sustain her sole assignment of error and remand this case to the trial court for an entry of dismissal.”
Fellow 5th District Judge Peter Abele joined Harsha to form the majority. Presiding Judge Matthew McFarland dissented, but declined to include a separate opinion.
The case is cited State v. Thornsbury, case No. 2013-Ohio-1914.
Copyright © 2013 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved