State v. Paarmann

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Cook

    919 N.W.2d 636 (Iowa Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 1 times
    Upholding escape conviction when Cook violated direct order to remain in the dining room and left the residential facility through the back door

    In a case nearly identical to this matter, this court held that an individual escaped from a facility pursuant to section 719.4(1) when he left the building through a fire exit that was not locked or equipped with an alarm. State v. Paarmann , No. 10-0862, 2013 WL 541631, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2013). In Paarmann , the court stated:

  2. White v. State

    No. 17-0263 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2018)

    He had intentionally walked out of a residential facility without permission. White's case involved almost the same factual situation as State v. Paarmann, No. 10-0862, 2013 WL 541631, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2013). In Paarmann, escape was held to be the applicable charge.

  3. State v. Oponski-Sims

    854 N.W.2d 74 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    The State relies on three unpublished cases from our court to bolster its position that leaving a residential facility or work release assignment qualifies as intentional escape. See Ennenga v. State, No. 10–1094, 2013 WL 3457070, at *2–3 (Iowa Ct.App. July 10, 2013) ; State v. Paarmann, No. 10–0862, 2013 WL 541631, at *2 (Iowa Ct.App. Feb.13, 2013) ; State v. Wiley, No. 01–1458, 2002 WL 31309923, at *2–4 (Iowa Ct.App. Oct.16, 2002). All three have stronger facts pointing to restricted liberty than we have here.Like Oponski–Sims, Ennenga claimed no factual basis existed for his plea to intentional escape.