Opinion
Criminal No. 89-0072 (TFH).
June 22, 2005
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the Court is the Petitioner's motion for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis. Upon careful consideration of Petitioner's motion, the Government's Opposition, Petitioner's reply, and the entire record herein, the Court will deny the motion.
BACKGROUND
In 1988, Petitioner Michael W. Hill was incarcerated at the Occoquan III facility in Lorton, Virginia. He was lawfully committed there on July 2, 1987, by virtue of a felony conviction from the D.C. Superior Court, CC# F2144-86K. During his incarceration, Mr. Hill participated in a horticultural program in which he assisted in refurbishing lawns in the District of Columbia. On June 15, 1988 Petitioner was scheduled to participate in a trip to D.C. as a part of the horticulture program. However, when the Petitioner was scheduled to return to Lorton after the trip, he could not be found. When Petitioner failed to return to Lorton by midnight that same day, he was placed on escape status. On October 1, 1988, Petitioner voluntarily surrendered. That same day an indictment was returned by the federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia charging Petitioner with Escape of Prisoner from Custody, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the case was then transferred to the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia on March 17, 1989. On April 12, 1989, Petitioner entered a guilty plea and was subsequently sentenced to a one year term of incarceration and two years of supervised release.
On March 5, 2003 Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis with this Court. The Government filed its Opposition to the Petition on November 3, 2003. Petitioner replied on November 12, 2003.
DISCUSSION
Assuming that a Writ of Error Coram Nobis is an appropriate collateral appeal for improper jurisdiction, and that challenge to jurisdiction has not been waived, the request for the writ will be denied.
A. The District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia had Proper Jurisdiction to Indict Petitioner for Escape of Prisoner from Custody
Petitioner's motion alleges that the District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia did not have proper jurisdiction when they indicted him for escape from custody. The government construed this challenge to be an issue of venue. It is unclear from Petitioner's brief on reply whether Petitioner intended to challenge both the jurisdiction and venue or merely jurisdiction. Accordingly, the issue of venue will also be addressed by this Court. See infra at section C. Both of Petitioner's pleadings, do however, assert a challenge to the original jurisdiction of Virginia's Eastern District Court.
"The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States." 18 U.S.C. § 3231. The criminal conduct that the Defendant was charged with before the District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia was a violation of federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (which prohibits escape by a prisoner in custody of institution or officer). Because all district courts have jurisdiction over violations of federal laws, the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia did indeed have proper jurisdiction.
B. Venue Was Proper in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Venue is not addressed in 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and is not automatically appropriate in any district court of the United States. Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states that venue is proper in the district in which the offense charged was committed. Accordingly, in order to determine if venue was appropriate, the Court must determine where the underlying offense occurred. The Court finds that it occurred in the Eastern District of Virginia.
Escape from federal custody under 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) is a continuing offense. United States v. Thomas, 361 F.3d 653, 658 n. 9 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 413 (1980)). As such, "an escapee can be held liable for failure to return to custody as well as for his initial departure." Bailey, 444 U.S. at 413. Because the Petitioner failed to return to federal custody in the Eastern District of Virginia, it is appropriate to consider that he committed the offense in that district and therefore venue was proper under Rule 18.