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:
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.
The State relies on three unpublished cases from our court to bolster its position that leaving a residential facility or work release assignment qualifies as intentional escape.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.