United States v. Phillip Coggins

398 F.2d 668, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6408
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 21, 1968
Docket12085
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 398 F.2d 668 (United States v. Phillip Coggins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Phillip Coggins, 398 F.2d 668, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6408 (4th Cir. 1968).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Coggins, a District of Columbia prisoner, was convicted of escape after he failed to return to Lorton Reformatory from a Christmas one-day furlough. He had been instructed to return to Lorton by a bus leaving the District of Columbia at 9:00 o’clock on Christmas night and to telephone Lorton in the event of an emergency. He failed to meet the bus, but a bit later he did telephone Lorton twice.

According to him, on the second call the unknown speaker at Lorton instructed him to turn himself in at the District of Columbia jail. It is not contended that this instruction reasonably could have been understood to have meant anything other than that he was to turn himself in for transportation back to Lorton.

Coggins failed to turn himself in to the District of Columbia jail, and he did nothing else to return to Lorton. Six days later he was arrested in the District of Columbia and returned involuntarily to Lorton.

We affirm the conviction of escape. While on furlough he remained in the custody of the Attorney General. The fact that he missed the bus returning to Lorton at 9:00 o’clock on Christmas night would not have appeared to have been willful at the time of his two phone calls, but his failure to return to Lorton at the end of his furlough became clearly willful when he did not turn himself in at the District of Columbia jail or take any other steps to return to Lorton during the next six days;

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Antonio Lee Franklin v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2025
State v. Paris.
378 P.3d 970 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 2016)
IN RE: Amparo-Concep v.
First Circuit, 2003
United States v. Miguel Rosa-Ortiz
348 F.3d 33 (First Circuit, 2003)
Lambert v. Commonwealth
367 S.E.2d 745 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1988)
Mundine v. United States
431 A.2d 16 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1981)
Days v. United States
407 A.2d 702 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1979)
United States v. Alvin Odell Cluck
542 F.2d 728 (Eighth Circuit, 1976)
Smith v. State
361 A.2d 237 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1976)
State, in Interest of Ms
322 A.2d 202 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1974)
State ex rel. M. S.
322 A.2d 202 (Essex County Court, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
398 F.2d 668, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-phillip-coggins-ca4-1968.