Ineffective assistance of counsel; Advice based on a misunderstanding of the law; Failure to accurately describe the terms of a Cobbs agreement; Motion to withdraw a plea; Aiding & abetting

The court held that defendant was entitled to withdraw his plea because it was clear that he was given ineffective assistance of counsel that rendered his plea unknowing and involuntary. Thus, it reversed his armed robbery convictions and remanded. He pled guilty pursuant to the terms of a Cobbs agreement. The case arose from the armed robbery of a coffee shop. It was “undisputed that defendant drove his two codefendants that day, that he dropped them off near the coffee shop, that they robbed the coffee shop at gun point, and that he drove them away. The central dispute pertains to defendant’s knowledge and intent.” The court noted that while he “clearly admits to being an accessory after the fact, assisting his codefendants after learning that they committed some sort of an armed robbery is not enough to establish aiding and abetting.” It determined that what he described (a plan to take someone’s money for a drug purchase and flee without providing the drugs) was “an intent to aid and abet a larceny, and there does not appear to be any authority suggesting as a matter of law that armed robbery inherently is a natural and probable consequence of larceny.” The court found “that the proper approach is to examine the intended crime, examine the actual crime, and then determine whether the actual crime was a natural and probable consequence of the intended crime. When viewed in this light, robbing a coffee shop at gunpoint clearly is not a natural and probable consequence of swindling a would-be drug buyer.” The court concluded that “if a jury believed defendant was credible, it appears highly likely it would acquit. However, trial counsel advised defendant to accept the Cobbs agreement because he did not believe defendant could succeed at trial.” The court found that “trial counsel advised defendant that he could not prevail at trial on the basis of a misunderstanding of the law, defendant pleaded guilty without understanding that he had been describing a scheme to commit larceny rather than robbery, and trial counsel did not accurately describe the terms of the Cobbs agreement until immediately before defendant pleaded guilty.”