Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04112/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04112-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Samuel A. Simmons
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

AUG 2 J 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. No. 89-4112 

SAMUEL A. SIMMONS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH 

(D.C. No. 88-CR-138W)) 

Jerome H. Mooney, III, of Mooney & Associates, Salt Lake City, 

Utah, for defendant-appellant. 

Heather Nelson Cooke (Dee Benson, u.s. Attorney, with her on the 

brief), Asst. u.s. Attorney, Salt Lake City, Utah, for plaintiffappellee. 

Before TACBA, McWILLIAMS, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. 

TACHA, Circuit Judge. 

This appeal is from defendant Samuel A. Simmons's conviction 

of violating 18 u.s.c. section 3146 by failing to appear at a 

court proceeding called for the purpose of inquiring into his 

whereabouts. Simmons further appeals from the district court's 

denial of his motion to dismiss the charges. we affirm. 

Appellate Case: 89-4112 Document: 01019378161 Date Filed: 08/23/1990 Page: 1 
I. 

Defendant Samuel A. Simmons, after guilty pleas in a 

different matter, was ordered by the district court to be placed 

in the Community Treating Center ("CTC") in Salt Lake City as an 

alternative to incarceration during the presentence phase of the 

proceedings. The supervised release order required that Simmons 

be placed on a twenty-four hour per day placement at the CTC. 

Further, the order clearly stated Simmons' duty to "appear at all 

proceedings as required." During the period that Simmons was 

required to remain at CTC, he was granted permission to leave only 

for the purposes of attending classes at the University of Utah 

and attending work. Otherwise, he was to remain physically at 

CTC. 

On January 22, 1989, Simmons was reported missing from CTC. 

The district court issued a bench warrant for his arrest and set a 

hearing for 1:30 p.m. January 24, 1989 to inquire into his 

location. Simmons' counsel received notice of the hearing on that 

same date. All parties agree that Simmons had no actual notice of 

the hearing date. Two days later, on January 26, Simmons was 

arrested, taken into custody, and charged with a violation of 18 

u.s.c. § 3146(a)(1) for failure to appear at a court proceeding. 

After a jury trial, Simmons was found guilty of the offenses 

charged. 

II. 

In this appeal Simmons argues that the evidence regarding his 

knowing violation of 18 u.s.c. section 3146 was insufficient to 

support the conviction. He further argues that the notice of the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-4112 Document: 01019378161 Date Filed: 08/23/1990 Page: 2 
January 24, 1989 hearing was insufficient. In our view these 

arguments lack merit. 

Counsel for the defendant was advised of the hearing on the 

morning of January 24 and the hearing was scheduled for 1:30 on 

that same date. Had Simmons abided by the terms of the supervised 

release order, he would have been available for the court or his 

attorney to inform him on short notice of the setting of the court 

hearing. Indeed, the court hearing would not have been required 

had Simmons complied with the terms of the original supervised 

release order. Section 3146 requires that the defendant's absence 

be "willful". Simmons' failure to comply with the supervised 

release order is a willful failure to be available to receive 

notice of and be available for any court proceedings that might be 

scheduled. See, e.g., United States~ Bourassa, 411 F.2d 69, 74 

(lOth Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 915 (1969); 1984 u.s. Code 

Cong. & Admin. News 3182, 3214 (quoting House·report discussion of 

"willfully" and voluntary absence). Simmons was a fugitive as 

soon as he failed to comply with the terms of the supervised 

release and absented himself from the CTC. Simmons cannot now 

complain about his failure to receive personal notice of the court 

hearing to inquire into his location. See United States ~ 

DePugh, 434 F.2d 548, 554 (8th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 

978 (1971). We further note that Simmons made no attempt to 

contact his attorney or the court with regard to his voluntary 

absence from CTC. Under these circumstances no actual notice to 

the defendant was necessary. The notice to his attorney was 

sufficient. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-4112 Document: 01019378161 Date Filed: 08/23/1990 Page: 3 
Simmons's second contention is that the government should 

have proceeded by seeking contempt sanctions for his violation of 

the district court's order rather than seeking a conviction under 

18 u.s.c. section 3146. We disagree. Where a defendant, as here, 

has violated both a court order and section 3146, the government 

did not err in choosing to pursue the statutory remedy. 

We AFFIRM. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-4112 Document: 01019378161 Date Filed: 08/23/1990 Page: 4