Charles E. Wilkins v. United States

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed Charles E. Wilkins's conviction under the Bail Reform Act for willfully failing to appear for sentencing. The court held that the statutory appearance requirement includes appearing at the specified time, not merely on the specified date, and that the trial court properly declined to give or rewrite the defendant's proposed jury instruction. The court also concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of willfulness.

Holdings

1. A defendant required to appear under D.C. Code § 23-1327 must appear on the correct date, at the correct time, and in the correct courtroom. A willful failure to appear at the appointed time may subject the defendant to prosecution under the Bail Reform Act.
2. The trial court did not err by refusing to give Wilkins's proposed instruction or by declining to rewrite it sua sponte because the proposed instruction was misleading and materially incomplete, and the court was not required to transform it into a multipart instruction presenting a legally accurate theory.
3. The evidence was sufficient to support Wilkins's conviction because he received notice of the required appearance at 11:00 a.m., failed to appear, and presented insufficient evidence to overcome the permissive statutory inference of willfulness.

Questions Presented

1. Whether D.C. Code § 23-1327 requires appearance at the specified time as well as on the specified date, such that a willful late appearance may constitute a statutory failure to appear.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to give or modify Wilkins's proposed theory-of-the-case instruction concerning his attorney's advice.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Wilkins's failure to appear was willful.

Disposition

affirmed