United States v. Sepe
| Decision Date | 19 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1352.,72-1352. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Florencio SEPE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Melvyn Kessler, Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., Michael P. Sullivan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., Elliot L. Richardson, Acting U. S. Atty. Gen., Robert B. Patterson, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and WISDOM, GEWIN, BELL, THORNBERRY, COLEMAN, GOLDBERG, AINSWORTH, GODBOLD, DYER, SIMPSON, MORGAN, CLARK, RONEY, and GEE, Circuit Judges.
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 nonjurisdictional 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 nonjurisdictional grounds.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Madera
...court rule is improper. United States v. Brown, 499 F.2d 829 (7th Cir.1974); United States v. Sepe, 474 F.2d 784, aff'd en banc, 486 F.2d 1044 (5th Cir.1973); United States v. Cox, 464 F.2d 937 (6th Cir.1972); see generally United States v. DePoli, 628 F.2d 779, 781 (2d Cir.1980).10 We need......
-
People v. Thomas
...of conditional guilty pleas. The Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Circuits have expressly disapproved conditional pleas (see United States v. Sepe, 486 F.2d 1044 (CA 5th, 1973); United States v. Cox, 464 F.2d 937 (CA 6th, 1972); United States v. Benson, 579 F.2d 508 (CA 9th, 1978)) while the Fourth a......
-
U.S. v. Winter, 73--2236
...aspects of the District Court's denial of the motion to suppress in contradiction to our decisions in United States v. Sepe, 5 Cir., 1973, 486 F.2d 1044 (en banc) affirming 474 F.2d 784; United States v. Mizell, 5 Cir., 1973, 488 F.2d 97? After indictment, appellants entered pleas of not gu......
-
Lefkowitz v. Newsome 8212 1627
...over the administration of criminal justice in the federal system. See United States v. Sepe, 474 F.2d 784 (CA5), aff'd en banc, 486 F.2d 1044 (1973); United States v. Cox, 464 F.2d 937 (CA6 1972); United States v. Mizell, 488 F.2d 97 (CA5 1973), and cases there cited. But see United States......