United States v. Soltow, No. 421-70.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | SETH and HOLLOWAY, Circuit , and BROWN |
| Citation | 444 F.2d 59 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen L. SOLTOW, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 22 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 421-70. |
444 F.2d 59 (1971)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Stephen L. SOLTOW, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 421-70.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
June 22, 1971.
John A. Babington, Asst. U. S. Atty., Albuquerque, N. M. (Victor R. Ortega, U. S. Atty., Albuquerque, N. M., with him on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
McAtee, Marchiondo & Michael, Albuquerque, N. M., for defendant-appellant.
Before SETH and HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, District Judge.
WESLEY E. BROWN, District Judge.
We are solicited in this case to find that appellant Soltow's plea of Guilty was not a waiver of non-jurisdictional defects and required the District Court to accept a nolo contendere plea. We decline to do either and affirm the District Court.
Soltow was convicted upon his plea of guilty to Count I of an indictment which charged him, with others, of knowingly and unlawfully manufacturing, compounding and processing a quantity of d1-Methamphetamine, a stimulant drug within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. § 321(v) (3), 21 C.F.R. 320.3(b), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 331(q) (1).
Soltow's main contention on this appeal from his conviction and sentence concerns the legal sufficiency of a search warrant under which certain items of personal property were seized. Appellant alleges that the trial court committed reversible error in finding that the warrant and supporting affidavit were legally sufficient, and in refusing to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to that warrant. It is also alleged that the search warrant is fatally defective in that it failed to affirmatively show that the conduct complained of did not come within one of the prescribed exceptions set out in 21 U.S.C. § 360a(a). In addition, Soltow asserts that the trial
Prior to his plea, Soltow challenged the sufficiency of the search warrant and affidavit by a Motion to Suppress evidence obtained under that warrant. Following submission of this issue on briefs and oral arguments, the district court denied the motion to suppress. Soltow then sought to withdraw his plea of Not Guilty to Count I of the Indictment, and to enter a plea of nolo contendere to this charge. Among the reasons offered to support such a plea were allegations that, (a) the trial court had committed error in overruling the motion to suppress; (b) that a severance had been granted as to co-defendants, and since Soltow would be tried first, he would be precluded from using his co-defendant Haimowitz as a witness, since Haimowitz had advised he would invoke his Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination; (c) that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Buonocore, No. 03-4201.
...recognized the district court's broad discretion in determining whether to accept a plea of nolo contendere. In United States v. Soltow, 444 F.2d 59 (10th Cir.1971), the defendant wished to plead nolo contendere, but the district court said, "If Mr. Soltow wants to change his plea, he may d......
-
United States v. Mizell, No. 72-1397.
...7 Cir., 1951, 191 F.2d 574; McGrath v. United States, 7 Cir., 1968, 402 F.2d 466. 11 See United States v. Soltow, 10 Cir., 1971, 444 F.2d 59; Roeth v. United States, 10 Cir., 1967, 382 F.2d 96, cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1016, 88 S.Ct. 1267, 20 L.Ed.2d 165; Zebelman v. United States, 10 Cir., 1......
-
United States v. McGill, CRIMINAL ACTION No. 12–112–01
...(1st Cir.1980) ("Acceptance of a nolo plea is solely a matter of grace." (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Soltow, 444 F.2d 59, 60 (10th Cir.1971) ("[T]he acceptance of [a nolo] plea is a matter solely within the discretion of the court."). This is consistent with the No......
-
United States v. Donohoe, No. 71-1395.
...denied 396 U.S. 879, 90 S.Ct. 156, 24 L.Ed.2d 137. 2 Dodd v. United States, 222 F.2d 175, 176 (10th Cir. 1955). 3 United States v. Soltow, 444 F.2d 59, 60 (10th Cir. 1971) ; Atkins v. Kansas, 386 F.2d 819 (10th Cir. 1967) ; Mahler v. United States, 333 F.2d 472, 474 (10th Cir. 1964), cert. ......
-
U.S. v. Buonocore, No. 03-4201.
...recognized the district court's broad discretion in determining whether to accept a plea of nolo contendere. In United States v. Soltow, 444 F.2d 59 (10th Cir.1971), the defendant wished to plead nolo contendere, but the district court said, "If Mr. Soltow wants to change his plea, he may d......
-
United States v. Mizell, No. 72-1397.
...7 Cir., 1951, 191 F.2d 574; McGrath v. United States, 7 Cir., 1968, 402 F.2d 466. 11 See United States v. Soltow, 10 Cir., 1971, 444 F.2d 59; Roeth v. United States, 10 Cir., 1967, 382 F.2d 96, cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1016, 88 S.Ct. 1267, 20 L.Ed.2d 165; Zebelman v. United States, 10 Cir., 1......
-
United States v. McGill, CRIMINAL ACTION No. 12–112–01
...(1st Cir.1980) ("Acceptance of a nolo plea is solely a matter of grace." (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Soltow, 444 F.2d 59, 60 (10th Cir.1971) ("[T]he acceptance of [a nolo] plea is a matter solely within the discretion of the court."). This is consistent with the No......
-
United States v. Donohoe, No. 71-1395.
...denied 396 U.S. 879, 90 S.Ct. 156, 24 L.Ed.2d 137. 2 Dodd v. United States, 222 F.2d 175, 176 (10th Cir. 1955). 3 United States v. Soltow, 444 F.2d 59, 60 (10th Cir. 1971) ; Atkins v. Kansas, 386 F.2d 819 (10th Cir. 1967) ; Mahler v. United States, 333 F.2d 472, 474 (10th Cir. 1964), cert. ......