Wood v. United States, 21496.

Decision Date19 January 1968
Docket NumberNo. 21496.,21496.
Citation391 F.2d 981
PartiesVance L. WOOD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Mr. Verginald L. Dolphin, Washington, D. C. (appointed by the District Court) was on the brief for appellant.

Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief for appellee.

Before BURGER, LEVENTHAL and ROBINSON, Circuit Judges, in Chambers.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was indicted for housebreaking, assault with a dangerous weapon, and robbery, and is awaiting trial on these charges. A judge of the Court of General Sessions, acting on a Bail Agency report and recommendation, denied release on personal recognizance and set bail at $10,000. That order was reviewed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3146(d) (Supp. II, 1965-66) by another General Sessions judge, the first being unavailable, and the $10,000 bail requirement was kept. The following reasons were given:

"Well, this is a very serious matter; robbery at gun point. I don\'t think there is sufficient showing here for me to reduce the bond in this case, the defendant being a user of narcotics for a period of fifteen years. I think it\'s been my experience that narcotics users are not too reliable, not too credible. I know he has several convictions of narcotics: in 1963 he was convicted of the Harrison Narcotics Act and received four years. He is not employed, he has lived on and off for a period of one year with his mother, father and two brothers, which doesn\'t give him too much stability. Based on his past record and insufficient community ties, and the fact that he is a narcotics user, I\'ll not change the conditions of release."

Following the proper statutory procedure, appellant then moved the District Court to exercise its discretion to amend the conditions of release, and to grant release on personal recognizance. This the District Judge declined to do, although he did lower bail from $10,000 to $5,000. Appellant appeals that order,1 as he is totally without funds and cannot raise that amount any more than he can $10,000.

The Government urges that the District Judge's order is not ripe for review by this court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3147(b) (Supp. II, 1965-66), contending that appellant must first avail himself of the opportunity of review under 18 U.S.C. § 3146(d) (Supp. II, 1965-66), giving the District Judge who amended the order opportunity to give written reasons for so doing, and for continuing the denial of release on personal recognizance. We think this contention plainly foreclosed by the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3147(b) (Supp. II, 1965-66). Subsection (b) grants a right of appeal to persons detained after either "(1) a court denies a motion under subsection (a)2 to amend an order imposing conditions of release," (in which case twenty-four hour review is required in accordance with the language of § 3147 (a),3 or "(2) conditions of release have been imposed or amended by a judge of the court having original jurisdiction over the offense charged * * *." Appellant comes within (b) (2), and no requirement exists that written reasons be sought prior to appellate review.

Turning to the merits, the Government contends that the District Judge's order is "supported by the proceedings below," and should be affirmed. On the state of the record before us we believe it appropriate, in the interest of justice and in view of the recent bail law, to remand the case for further consideration.

The Bail Reform Act creates a strong policy in favor of release on personal recognizance, and it is only if "such a release would not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required" that other conditions of release may be imposed. Even then, the statute in 18 U.S.C. § 3146 creates a hierarchy of conditions, one of the least favored of which is a requirement of bail bond. In considering what, if any, conditions shall be imposed the judge shall consider various factors relevant to the probability of flight, and one factor is "his record of appearance at court proceedings or of flight to avoid prosecution or failure to appear at court proceedings." While we are informed by counsel that appellant has always appeared in connection with prior criminal proceedings against him, and there have been at least twelve over the past thirteen...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • United States v. Gallo, 86-CR-452 (JBW).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 14 November 1986
    ...to authorize courts to entertain a motion to change a detention order to one granting release on conditions. See Wood v. United States, 391 F.2d 981, 984 (D.C. Cir.1968) ("the judges of the District Court ... have a broad discretion to amend the conditions imposed, or to grant release outri......
  • Van Atta v. Scott
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 3 July 1980
    ...under systems that create a presumption in favor of OR release. Or.Rev.Stat., § 135.245(3); 18 U.S.C. § 3146; Wood v. United States, (D.C.Cir.1968) 391 F.2d 981, 983.) As a result, a significantly higher percentage of detainees is released OR in those jurisdictions than in San Francisco. 15......
  • US v. Harris
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 28 February 1990
    ...conclusion was based on the statute's use of the term "motion" as opposed to "appeal" and inconclusive language in Wood v. United States, 391 F.2d 981, at 984 (D.C.Cir. 1968) ("District judges have broad discretion to amend the conditions imposed, or to grant release outright"), and Grimes.......
  • United States v. Stanley
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 14 August 1972
    ...1150, 1153 (1969); White v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 14, 16 n. 8, 412 F.2d 145, 147 n. 8 (1969); Wood v. United States, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 143, 145, 391 F.2d 981, 983 (1968). See also Bandy v. United States, 81 S.Ct. 197, 198, 5 L.Ed.2d 218 (1960) (Mr. Justice Douglas); Hansford v. Uni......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT