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.
CL 1948, § 750.193 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.390).
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 F.2d 578, cert. denied, 322 U.S. 748 ( 64 S Ct 1157, 88 L Ed 1580); People v. Scherbing (1949), 93 Cal.App.2d 736 ( 209 P.2d 796); State, ex rel. Robison, v. Boles (1965), 149 W. Va. 516 ( 142 S.E.2d 55). One does not challenge the law by violating its mandates. Walker v. City of Birmingham (1967), 388 U.S. 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.