United States v. Sepe, 72-1352.

Decision Date04 April 1973
Docket NumberNo. 72-1352.,72-1352.
Citation474 F.2d 784
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Florencio SEPE, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Melvyn Kessler, Dennis I. Holober, Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellant.

Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., Michael P. Sullivan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before COLEMAN, GOLDBERG and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.

Rehearing En Banc Granted April 4, 1973.

COLEMAN, Circuit Judge:

The Grand Jury for the Southern District of Florida indicted Florencio Sepe for (1) conspiring to import sixty-six pounds of heroin, 21 U.S.C. § 952(a); 18 U.S.C. § 2; 21 U.S.C. § 963; (2) for importing sixty-six pounds of heroin; and (3) for possessing the said narcotics with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

On January 11, 1972, the case came to trial.

Sepe contended that the heroin and the suitcase in which it had been contained should be suppressed as being fruits of an unlawful search. The trial judge disagreed.

A jury was selected. The government made its opening statement. Seven witnesses were examined, compiling a trial transcript of 141 typewritten pages.

At this point the following transpired:

MR. KESSLER counsel for Sepe: Your Honor, we have a most unusual request at this point in time and I trust the Court would go along with this request.

We are presently attempting to negotiate a favorable arrangement between the Defendant and the U. S. Government. There are one or two small problems, one of which, I'm waiting for the Interpreter that my client has faith in and that we can discuss it a little bit further, and he should be here momentarily.

THE COURT: We will discuss it here at sidebar.

We will let the jury have a recess for half an hour.

(Thereupon a recess was taken until 10:00 a. m., pursuant to which the following proceedings were had outside the presence of the jury:)

MR. KESSLER: Your Honor, the Defendant at this time has an announcement to make.

THE COURT: All right. We'll hear you.

MR. KESSLER: With the permission of the Court, we would at this time request of the Court to permit us to withdraw our plea of not guilty as to Counts 1, 2 and 3.

THE COURT: Your client is not named in Count 3. Counts 1, 2 and 5 are the Counts which relate to Mr. Sepe.

MR. KESSLER: Yes sir.

At this time, Your Honor, with the Court's permission, we would tender a plea of guilty to Count 1, and a plea of no contest to Counts 2 and 5.

THE COURT: And what is the Government's position?

MR. SULLIVAN: Your Honor, we will make a recommendation as to sentencing, but we do not object to the two nolo pleas as to Counts 2 and 5.

MR. KESSLER: We would ask at this time, Your Honor, that the Court defer the matter of sentencing to permit us for the taking of testimony from the family sometime next week. They are remaining —

Thereafter, the following proceedings took place:

THE COURT: Mr. Sepe, how old are you?

THE DEFENDANT: Thirty-two years old.

THE COURT: What education do you have?

THE DEFENDANT: Up to sixth grade, elementary school.

THE COURT: Are you married?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Have you children?

THE DEFENDANT: Three.

THE COURT: How many?

THE DEFENDANT: Three.

THE COURT: Now, under the law I must ask you certain questions to be sure that you understand what is happening and what you are doing. The fact that I do this does not reflect on your Counsel or their knowledge or ability, since they have already undoubtedly told you of the same things and asked you the same questions.

Do you understand that by entering a plea to Count 1 of the indictment that you are admitting the truth of the charge, that you agreed with one or more of the other persons named to import unlawfully into the United States a quantity of heroin; you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: And do you understand that when you plead guilty, there is no further trial either before a jury or before me, and that the only thing that will remain to be done is that I determine and impose whatever sentence I think appropriate?

THE DEFENDANT: (Nods head.)

THE COURT: Is your plea of guilty entered freely and voluntarily on your part?

THE DEFENDANT: (Nods head.)

THE COURT: Will you answer so the Court Reporter gets it?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Other than the promise or assurance of the United States Attorney that he will make a recommendation to the Court about your sentence, have any other promises or inducements been offered to you?

THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.

MR. BIERMAN: I would point out, Your Honor, that I have explained to the Defendant that the Court has indicated, pursuant to the ABA standards, that if the Court feels it necessary to exceed the Government's recommendation, that an opportunity to withdraw the plea would be given.

THE COURT: And I say to the Defendant as I have said to you, his Counsel, that I cannot foresee any circumstance at the moment that would impel me to impose a sentence in excess of the recommendation of the Government as to maximum sentence.

You understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Now, with respect to Count 3 of the indictment.

MR. SULLIVAN: Is that not Count 2, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Count 2. Thank you.

With respect to Count 2 of the indictment, you are charged with having unlawfully imported into the United States from a place outside, a quantity of heroin, sixty-six pounds. Do you understand that by a plea of nolo contendere you say to the Court that you do not contest the truth of that charge?

THE DEFENDANT: (nods head.)

THE COURT: And his answer?

THE DEFENDANT: Is yes, sir.

THE COURT: And you understand that when you enter such a plea, there is no trial before Court or jury and that the Court may then sentence you upon that Count of the indictment with the same force and effect as if you had entered a plea of guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: (Nods head.)

THE COURT: Will you answer so the Court Reporter hears you?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: On Count 5 of the indictment you are charged, with Mr. Pellini, with possession with intent to distribute a quantity of heroin, approximately sixty-six pounds. Do you understand that by your plea of nolo contendere, that you, by that plea, do not contest the truth of the charge? The Court, of course, understands that what was actually in the bag when you got it was one package and not sixty-two.

THE INTERPRETER: Not one package but two when the bag was delivered to him and Mr. Pellini, the rest being flour, according to the evidence before us.

And do you understand that on that Count if you plead nolo contendere, there is no further trial before the jury or before the Judge, and that the Judge may sentence you upon that Count of the indictment with the same force and effect as if you had entered a plea of guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: (Nods head.)

THE COURT: And his answer?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Do you understand that upon these Counts, that the maximum prison sentence could be as much as fifteen years?

THE DEFENDANT: (Nods head.)

THE COURT: You must answer. He is shaking his head Yes, but we don't get your answer unless you utter it vocally.

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: And with the knowledge of what your Counsel have told you and what the Judge has told you, are you still desirous and willing to change your plea to guilty on Count 1, and to nolo contendere on Counts 2 and 5?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: The Clerk may now take his plea of guilty on Count 1 and nolo contendere on Counts 2 and 5.

The defendant was thereafter sentenced to one-half of the maximum term of imprisonment, plus a fine.

He now seeks to appeal on the ground that the intended reception in evidence of the suitcase and heroin infringed his Fourth Amendment rights and that his conviction, although on obviously voluntary pleas of guilty and nolo contendere, should be reversed.

We cannot accept this contention.

The situation is completely covered by a most thoroughly researched, cogently reasoned decision recently rendered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in United States v. Cox, 464 F.2d 937 (1972).

There is a strong temptation to quote in extenso from the Cox opinion. Since it is reported, and thus available to all, we restrict ourselves to the following excerpts:

"The procedure employed in the case at bar is at variance with the general, well-settled rule that a guilty plea "normally rests on the defendant's own admission in open court that he has committed the acts with which he is charged," see McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 766, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L. Ed.2d 763 (1970); Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970); McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 466, 89 S. Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969). When made by the accused, knowingly, willingly and with the benefit of competent counsel, a plea of guilty waives all nonjurisdictional defects. Austin v. Perini, 434 F.2d 752 (6th Cir. 1970); Humphries v. Green, 397 F.2d 67 (6th Cir. 1968); Reed v. Henderson, 385 F.2d 995 (6th Cir. 1967); McCord v. Henderson, 384 F.2d 135 (6th Cir. 1967); Crockett v. Haskins, 372 F.2d 475 (6th Cir. 1966); also see, Jenkins v. Beto, 442 F. 2d 655 (5th Cir. 1971); Nobles v. Beto, 439 F.2d 1001 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Rook, 424 F.2d 403 (7th Cir. 1970), cert. den. 398 U.S. 966, 90 S.Ct. 2180, 26 L.Ed.2d 550 (1970); United States v. McElya, 142 U.S.App.D.C. 38, 439 F.2d 548 (1970); Abram v. United States, 398 F.2d 350 (3rd Cir. 1968); United States ex rel. Rogers v. Warden, 381 F.2d 209 (2d Cir. 1967); Runge v. United States, 427 F.2d 122 (10th Cir. 1970); Seybold v. Cady, 431 F.2d 683 (7th Cir. 1970). The jurisdictional exception to the general rule has been limited to cases in which the accused is challenging the constitutionality of the statute, usually on Fifth...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • State v. Madera
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • December 17, 1985
    ...plea in the absence of statutory authority or 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. DePo......
  • U.S. v. Winter, 73--2236
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • March 13, 1975
    ...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 guilty and moved to dismiss the indictmen......
  • State v. Crosby
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • September 13, 1976
    ...1967). To permit review of non-jurisdictional defects, appeals from guilty pleas, has also been criticized. See e.g., United States v. Sepe, 474 F.2d 784 (CA5, 1973); United States v. Cox, 464 F.2d 937 (CA6, 1972). The chief arguments against such a procedure are: it compromises the finalit......
  • Lefkowitz v. Newsome 8212 1627
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 19, 1975
    ...in the exercise of their supervisory powers 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), ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT