from the Judgment of Sentence November 30, 2016 In the Court
of Common Pleas of Union County Criminal Division at No(s):
BEFORE: OLSON, J., MOULTON, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
Rick Alan Waugaman, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered on November 30, 2016, following his jury trial
conviction for escape, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5121. Upon review,
trial court summarized the facts of this case as follows:
On September 12, 2015, [Appellant] was incarcerated in the
Union County Prison. The [trial] court had granted him
work-release status. Prison officials released [Appellant]
from the work-release section of the prison to go to work on
that date at approximately 3:00 a.m. [Appellant] did not go
to work. Instead, [Appellant] went to his girlfriend's
house. He then returned to the prison around 8:00 a.m. that
same day. Later, prison authorities revoked [Appellant's]
Trial Court Opinion, 2/17/2017, at 2 (unpaginated).
the case proceeded as follows:
[The Commonwealth charged Appellant with escape based upon
the same facts that supported his removal from work release
status.] On October 6, 2016, a jury convicted [Appellant] of
[e]scape[.] On November 30, 2016, [the trial] court sentenced
[Appellant] [to] a period of incarceration in a state
correctional facility [to] not less than one year nor more
than four years. [Appellant] filed his [p]ost-[s]entence
[m]otion on Monday[, ] December 12, 2016[.] [The trial] court
denied [Appellant's] motion on that same day. [Appellant]
filed his [n]otice of [a]ppeal on January 12, 2017. [The
trial] court ordered [Appellant] to file a [s]tatement of
[errors] [c]omplained of on [a]ppeal. In his [s]tatement
filed on February 2, 2017, [Appellant] claimed [the trial]
court erred when it denied his [pretrial motion].
Id. at 1-2 (unpaginated). The trial court issued an
opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on February 17, 2017.
appeal, Appellant presents the following issues for our
1. Did error occur in [the] denial of Appellant's
[o]mnibus [m]otion, specifically where [the] prosecution for
[e]scape was improper as there was no showing that Appellant
attempted to remove himself from official detention?
2. Did error occur in [the] denial of Appellant's
[m]otion in [l]imine, as his behavior was addressed by
removal of work release privileges, thus making prosecution