
    PEOPLE v. MULLREED
    Criminal Law — Escape from Prison — Lawful Confinement — Appeal and Error.
    . There are procedural means available to attack an arguably tainted conviction, and a defendant who was confined to prison under color of law may not successfully contend that his escape from prison is not a erime because the conviction leading , to his imprisonment was faulty (CL 1948, § 750.193).
    Reference for Points in Headnote
    27 Am Jur 2d, Escape, Prison Breaking and Rescue §7 et seq.
    
    Appeal from Jackson, Dalton (John C.), J.
    Submitted Division 2 January 7, 1969, at Lansing.
    (Docket No. 4,943.)
    Decided January 29, 1969.
    Joseph E. Mullreed was convicted of escape from prison. Defendant ■ appeals. '
    Affirmed.
    
      ‘■-'Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Bruce A. Barton, Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
    
      M. B. Townsend, Jr., for defendant on appeal.
   Per Curiam.

A jury trial adjudged defendant guilty of an escape from prison. He appeals, contending that his original conviction for armed robbery resulting in his imprisonment was erroneous.

Under the modern view, a defendant may not successfully contend that an escape from lawful confinement is not a crime because the conviction leading to his imprisonment was allegedly faulty. See Bayless v. United States (CA 9, 1944), 141 F2d 578, cert. denied, 322 US 748 (64 S Ct 1157, 88 L Ed 1580); People v. Scherbing (1949), 93 Cal App 2d 736 (209 P2d 796); State, ex rel. Robison, v. Boles (1965), 149 W Va 516 (142 SE2d 55). One does not challenge the law by violating its mandates. Walker v. City of Birmingham (1967), 388 US 307 (87 S Ct 1824, 18 L Ed 2d 1210). There are procedural means available to attack a conviction arguably tainted by reversible error. But those means do not include the freedom to defy lawful imprisonment with impunity. An individual is not justified in escaping from prison if he was validly sentenced and confined under color of law.

We do not consider defendant’s remaining arguments concerning the soundness of his robbery conviction. The arguments were not raised in the lower court and, consequently, are not properly before this court.

Conviction affirmed.

'Quinn, P. J., and McGregor and V. J. Brennan, JJ., concurred. 
      
       CL 1948, § 750.193 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.390).
     