Armstead v. United States, 6538.
| Decision Date | 25 September 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 6538.,6538. |
| Citation | 310 A.2d 255 |
| Parties | John E. ARMSTEAD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Robert E. Clem, Washington, D. C., appointed by this court, for appellant.
Julius A. Johnson, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Harold H. Titus, Jr., U. S. Atty., and John A. Terry, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before KELLY and NEBEKER, Associate Judges, and QUINN, Associate Judge, retired.
In June of 1971 appellant pleaded guilty to three misdemeanors for which he was sentenced to serve concurrent six-month terms of imprisonment "with narcotic treatment and vocational rehabilitation ordered".1 He was incarcerated at the minimum security facility in Lorton, Virginia, until August 25, when he was transferred by the District of Columbia Department of Corrections to Shaw Residence No. 2, a privately owned halfway house under contract with the Department of Corrections, to participate in a work release program. When appellant failed to obtain employment as required of participants in the program, an administrative decision was made to return him to confinement for the remainder of his sentence. On September 10, shortly before United States deputy marshals were to take appellant to D.C. Jail, he left the halfway house and failed to return. Three days later he was reported to the Department of Corrections as an escapee and a warrant was issued for his arrest.
Appellant was later apprehended and charged by indictment with prison breach, a violation of D.C.Code 1972 Supp., § 22-2601.2 A subsequent motion to dismiss the indictment was denied and following a nonjury trial he was found guilty as charged. The trial court's decision was based on findings that appellant had not been placed in a work release program pursuant to court order and therefore the penalty provisions of D.C.Code 1972 Supp., § 24-465(b), containing milder penal sanctions for absconders from work release programs were inapplicable.3 The court found, alternatively, that even if appellant had been so placed he was subject to prosecution under either D.C.Code 1972 Supp., § 22-2601 or § 24-465(b).
Appellant's arguments on appeal are (1) that the government failed to prove that he had escaped from a "penal institution of the District of Columbia" or "the custody of any official thereof or any other officer or employee of the District of Columbia", essential elements of prison breach under D.C.Code 1972 Supp., § 22-2601; (2) that the trial court erred in finding that he was not placed in a work release program pursuant to court order, and (3) that the court erred in holding that D.C.Code 1972 Supp., § 24-465(b) is not the exclusive sanction for a misdemeanant absconding from a halfway house.4
Shaw Residence No. 2, in the District of Columbia, is a so-called halfway house operated under contract with the Department of Corrections. Appellant questions, however, whether it is a penal institution of the District of Columbia within the contemplation of § 22-2601, or that its employees are officers or employees of the District of Columbia. The court found, and we agree, that upon conviction appellant had been committed to the custody of the Attorney General and, through delegation of authority, to a penal institution of the District of Columbia.5 The Department of Corrections, under whose supervision the Lorton complex falls,6 placed appellant in a work release program and effected his transfer from the minimum security facility at Lorton to the Shaw halfway house in the District. Appellant remained in the custody of the Department at all times7 and his place of limited confinement in a halfway house was but a substitute for a more structured environment of the minimum security facility from which he was transferred. He remained in a penal institution of the District of Columbia for purposes of the breach of prison statute and did escape therefrom. Accordingly, the court did not err in finding that the government had proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the offense.
The District of Columbia Work Release Act, D.C.Code 1967, § 24-461 et seq., was enacted by Congress in 1966. The Act gave the court authority to grant work release privileges to certain classes of prisoners "when the sentencing judge is satisfied that the ends of justice and best interests of society as well as of the prisoner will be subserved thereby."8 Placement in a work release program is available only by court order,9 and those who breach the terms of a work release plan by willfully failing to return at the time and to the place of confinement designated in the plan are subject to prosecution under D.C.Code 1972 Supp., § 24-465(b).
It does not appear in the instant case that appellant was placed in a work release program pursuant to court order. A presentence report recommended that appellant be incarcerated, given drug treatment and taught a vocational skill in light of his prior criminal record, his drug problem, and his lack of steady employment. He was sentenced to "6 months with narcotic treatment and vocational rehabilitation". While this ambiguous statement falls short of a court order specifying work release, the Department of Corrections interpreted it as such. When space became available in Shaw Residence No. 2, a facility housing only misdemeanants placed on work release by court order, appellant was transferred there by the Department.
The government argues that the absence of a clear court order of work release makes the Work Release Act inapplicable, thus precluding prosecution under D.C.Code 1972 Supp., § 24-465(b) and necessitating the application of the more stringent prison breach statute against him.10 We agree that when the trial court determines that a defendant convicted of a misdemeanor should participate in a work release program an explicit order to that effect should be entered. The Act provides that in its discretion the sentencing court may grant the privilege of work release. The Department of Corrections is not privileged to interpret an ambiguous order of the trial judge as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gonzalez v. United States
...v. United States, 407 A.2d 702, 704 (D.C.1979); United States v. Venable, 316 A.2d 857, 858 (D.C.1974) (per curiam); Armstead v. United States, 310 A.2d 255, 256 (D.C.1973). For example, in Armstead, the court found that a prisoner, who had been placed in a halfway house on work release thr......
-
Mundine v. United States, 79-1117.
...purposes of appellant's custody. See United States v. Venable, D.C.App., 316 A.2d 857, 858 (1974) (per curiam); Armstead v. United States, D.C.App., 310 A.2d 255, 256 (1973). Whatever appellant's legal duty had been prior to this time, as of 8:15 p. m. he had a legal duty to obey the office......
-
Rindgo v. United States
...he failed to return. He argues that this status controls the escape issue. We do not agree. This court held in Armstead v. United States, D.C.App., 310 A.2d 255, 257 (1973), that the defendant's conduct was within the contemplation of the federal escape statute and his prosecution thereunde......
-
Bannum v. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment
...The fact that a halfway house may be deemed a "penal institution" for the purposes of the criminal escape statute, see Armstead v. United States, 310 A.2d 255 (D.C.1973), is irrelevant to the question before the BZA and this court in this case, which is whether Bannum's community correction......