Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Florencio Sepe

United States v. Florencio Sepe, 486 F.2d 1044 (5th Cir. 1973)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1973-11-19
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • a policy statement unaccompanied by any supporting reasons

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Florencio Sepe. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
52 opinions
UNITED STATES v. SEPE,486 F.2d 1044(5th Cir. 1973)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. FLORENCIO SEPE,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 72-1352.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
November 19, 1973.
Page 1045
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.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of Florida
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and WISDOM, GEWIN, BELL, THORNBERRY, COLEMAN, GOLDBERG, AINSWORTH, GODBOLD, DYER, SIMPSON, MORGAN, CLARK, RONEY, and GEE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] The panel opinion in this case is reported, United States v. Sepe, 5 Cir., 1973,474 F.2d 784.

[2] The panel held that Sepe's voluntary plea of guilty to a charge of conspiring to import heroin and his voluntary pleas ofnolocontendereto 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.

[3] 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.

[4] 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,1or that the indictment showed on its face that it was barred by the statute of limitations.2

[5] In the interest of clarity we point out that this case did not involve an express agreement to allow an appeal,3but we now take advantage of an opportunity to say that as matter of policy this Court disapproves the practice of accepting pleas of guilty ornolo contendereif they are coupled with agreements that the defendant may nevertheless appeal on nonjurisdictional grounds.

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

[7] Affirmed.Page 1047
  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 andnolopleas, this appeal presents noSantobelloissue, Santobello v. New York,404 U.S. 257,92 S.Ct. 495,30 L.Ed.2d 427(1971). ↩