Pennsylvania Ex Rel. Sullivan v. Ashe

Background

A man sentenced in 1929 to three-to-six years for burglary and larceny escaped from the Pennsylvania penitentiary in 1931. After he was recaptured and given a new sentence to begin when his original term ended and not to exceed that term, he asked the State’s highest court to free him. The State relied on an 1860 law that makes breaking out of prison a misdemeanor and allows a new imprisonment term to begin after the original sentence and last no longer than that original term. The State court upheld the sentence and the Supreme Court agreed to review a claimed conflict with other state decisions.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether it violates equal treatment principles to punish prisoners differently for escaping based on the length or seriousness of the sentence they were already serving. The opinion explains that history and long-standing practice have treated escape more severely when committed by someone serving a harsher or longer sentence. The Court relied on earlier decisions and common-law background to conclude that using the original sentence as the basis for a stricter punishment is a permissible classification. The Court said the original sentence gives evidence about the prisoner’s character and danger to society, and that treating recidivists or more serious offenders more harshly is an acceptable state choice.

Real world impact

The decision means States may enforce laws that add prison time for escapes tied to the inmate’s original sentence. Prisoners who escape can receive additional confinement up to the length of their original term, and inmates who had different original sentences may lawfully receive different additional terms.