He did not try to flee in the physical sense, but he did in the legal sense. Obviously the case got appealed until it reached Federal court and eventually the supreme, and then it was decided in accordance with the existing law of that time.
State courts do not control precedent for Federal courts.
You still don't comprehend what the case was about and why Taney's decision was such a disaster.
The disaster was that provision in article IV which the Northern states voluntarily agreed to, and then used every trick of which they could think to get out of that devil's bargain.
They either should have not agreed with it, or not Unionized with Slave states.
Again, you are simply wrong. Taney did not cite Article IV in his decision. His decision was based on his legal and historical fiction that no black was or ever could be a citizen and therefore Scott had no right to appeal to a Federal Court.
But of course, Northern states never agreed to such a "devil's bargain", nor did any Southern Founder ever claim they had.
Indeed, even 1861 Secessionist documents never claimed that slavery was protected in non-slave states, beyond the constitutionally mandated return of Fugitive Slaves.
So, pal, you've built a whole argument here, defended with innumerable posts, based on nothing except your delusions as to what our Founders intended by their words and deeds.
You need to get over it.