UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
FLORENCIO SEPE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A voluntary guilty or nolo contendere plea waives all non-jurisdictional errors, barring an appeal on those grounds, and the court disapproves of pleas conditioned on the right to appeal non-jurisdictional issues.
Sepe pleaded guilty to conspiracy to import heroin and nolo contendere to importing and possessing heroin with intent to distribute. He sought to appe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Nolo Contendere Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
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.
. Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923 (1968).
. United States v. Rosenberg, 5 Cir., 1972, 458 F. 2d 1183.
. 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).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (35 total)
-
Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1979)
-
Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283 (U.S. 1975)
-
United States v. Leonor Amanda Afanador and Blanca Nubia Vidal-Garcia, 567 F.2d 1325 (5th Cir. 1978)
Previewing 3 of 35 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971)
- Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (U.S. 1968)
- United States v. Wysocki, 457 F.2d 1155 (5th Cir. 1972)
- United States v. Florencio Sepe, 474 F.2d 784 (5th Cir. 1973)
- United States v. Rosenberg, 458 F.2d 1183 (5th Cir. 1972)
- United States v. Cook, 463 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. 1972)