United States v. Florencio Sepe

486 F.2d 1044, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6949
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided November 19, 1973·No. 72-1352·Published·Cited by 52 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The panel opinion in this case is reported, United States v. Sepe, 5 Cir., 1973, 474 F.2d 784.

The panel held that Sepe’s voluntary plea of guilty to a charge of conspiring to import heroin and his voluntary pleas of nolo contendere to charges of importing heroin and of possessing narcotics with intent to distribute waived all non-jurisdictional errors and barred an appeal in which Sepe sought to assert that the heroin and the suitcase in which it was contained should have been suppressed as the fruits of an unlawful search.

It was further held that a guilty plea is not invalid because it represents a compromise by the defendant or thrusts a difficult judgment on him or is motivated by fear of greater punishment.

The panel was careful to say that a guilty plea does not bar an appeal which asserts that the indictment or information failed to state an offense, or that the statute providing the basis for the charge is unconstitutional, 1 or that the indictment showed on its face that it was barred by the statute of limitations. 2

In the interest of clarity we point out that this case did not) involve an express agreement to allow an appeal, 3 but we now take advantage of an opportunity to say that as matter of policy this Court disapproves the practice of accepting pleas of guilty or nolo contendere if they are coupled with agreements that the defendant may nevertheless appeal on non-jurisdictional grounds.

The opinion and judgment of the panel, 474 F.2d 784, is

Affirmed.

1

. Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923 (1968).

2

. United States v. Rosenberg, 5 Cir., 1972, 458 F.2d 1183.

3

. United States v. Cook, 5 Cir., 1972, 463 F. 2d 123; United States v. Wysocki, 5 Cir., 1972, 457 F.2d 1155.

Since the record reflects no agreement to permit an appeal after the guilty and nolo pleas, this appeal presents no Santolello issue, Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971).

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

United States v. Florencio Sepe, 486 F.2d 1044, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6949 (5th Cir. 1973).

486 F.2d 1044 (United States v. Florencio Sepe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Maurice Dwight Marshall
453 F. App'x 911 (Eleventh Circuit, 2011)
People v. Neuhaus
240 P.3d 391 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2009)
United States v. Pierre
120 F.3d 1153 (Eleventh Circuit, 1997)
State v. Madera
503 A.2d 136 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1985)
United States v. Joseph George Helmich
704 F.2d 547 (Eleventh Circuit, 1983)
United States v. William Thibadeau
671 F.2d 75 (Second Circuit, 1982)
United States v. Roland Wesley Weber
668 F.2d 552 (First Circuit, 1981)
United States v. James J. Touchet
658 F.2d 1074 (Fifth Circuit, 1981)
United States v. Alvin Broussard
645 F.2d 504 (Fifth Circuit, 1981)
State v. Owens
619 P.2d 761 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1980)
United States v. William P. Broome, Jr.
628 F.2d 403 (Fifth Circuit, 1980)
Johnny L. Brown v. Marvin Jernigan, Warden
622 F.2d 914 (Fifth Circuit, 1980)
United States v. John A. Depoli
628 F.2d 779 (Second Circuit, 1980)
Brown v. State
376 So. 2d 382 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1979)
United States v. Walter Dale Broncheau
597 F.2d 1260 (Ninth Circuit, 1979)
Joseph Franklin v. United States
589 F.2d 192 (Fifth Circuit, 1979)
United States v. Moskow, Sigmund
588 F.2d 882 (Third Circuit, 1978)
United States v. Horace Benson
579 F.2d 508 (Ninth Circuit, 1978)