People v. Cobbins

Summary

The Appellate Division, Third Department, reviewed Eugene Cobbins's convictions and subsequent resentencing for robbery, grand larceny, and assault. The court held that suppression arguments concerning delayed arraignment were unpreserved and upheld the finding that Cobbins knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. It affirmed the original judgment, reversed the resentencing judgment, and remitted for resentencing on the two grand larceny convictions because Cobbins was not present or shown to have knowingly waived his right to be present.

Holdings

1. Because the criminal complaint had not been formally filed when the interrogation occurred, defendant's indelible right to counsel had not attached. Any claim that unnecessary delay in filing charges or arraignment affected the voluntariness of his statements was statutory and unpreserved because it was not raised in County Court.
2. Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, and suppression of his statements was not warranted.
3. Defendant's fundamental right to be present at resentencing was violated because he was not produced at the resentencing proceeding and the record did not establish that he knew about it. The resentencing judgment therefore had to be reversed and the matter remitted for resentencing on the two grand-larceny convictions.
4. Defendant's challenge concerning inclusory concurrent counts was foreclosed by his guilty plea.
5. The 10-year sentence for first-degree robbery was not unduly harsh or severe, and the court declined to reduce it in the interest of justice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendant's custodial statements should be suppressed because police allegedly delayed filing charges to circumvent his indelible right to counsel.
2. Whether defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights.
3. Whether defendant's challenge based on unnecessary delay in filing charges and arraignment was preserved for appellate review.
4. Whether defendant's resentencing violated his fundamental right to be present.
5. Whether the robbery conviction sentence was unduly harsh or severe and should be reduced in the interest of justice.
6. Whether defendant's guilty plea foreclosed his challenge to inclusory concurrent counts.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded