A Cobb`s agreement is based on the Michigan Supreme Court People v Cobbs, 443 Mich 276 (1993). The case concerned the abduction and the accused entered into a conviction agreement with the judge. The prosecutor contradicted and the case appealed. The Michigan Supreme Court found that the judge had acted fairly. As soon as you enter a plea on the basis of a Cobbs agreement, if the judge later decides that he will not follow the Cobbs agreement, you will have the opportunity to withdraw your plea. If you violate a condition that the judge asked you to do before sentencing you, you cannot withdraw your argument. There are many judges who will not allow a cobbs agreement to be entered into their court. However, if it is available, you will need a lawyer like Shawn Haff by your side to get the best possible results! Call Shawn at 616-438-6719! The call is free! Will it be? If the accused likes the Cobb agreement, he can plead guilty and return to conviction. If the accused does not like the judge`s offer, the person can refuse the offer and go to court. McR 6.310 (B) (3) provides that, unless the court has properly admitted it, a defendant is not entitled to withdraw an MCR 6.310 (a) (a) or MCR 6.310 (B) (b) remedy if the defendant, upon acceptance of the plea, commits a fault, is guilty of a fault. For the purposes of this rule, misconduct is defined to include the following, but is not limited to: flight or non-appearance for the purpose of conviction, violation of the terms of the loan or the terms of a conviction or oral argument or other non-compliance with a Court order until conviction. If a defendant is aggrieved by the violation of an unauthorized plea agreement with the police (which the defendant is not prosecuted), he is not entitled to some respect for this agreement.
Instead, the removal or exclusion of the written agreement is an appropriate means of redress. If a conviction agreement subsequently negotiated between the defendant and the charge is violated by the Crown, a court of appeal has discretion to choose between the annulment of the plea or the order of a specified benefit, the choice of the defendant`s remedy being of considerable importance.