Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, No. 5585-1974-20, in case of In the Matter of Craig Miller.
Calvin S. Drayer, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Stewart J. Greenleaf, Assistant District Attorney, William T. Nicholas, First Assistant District Attorney, and Milton O. Moss, District Attorney, for appellee.
Watkins, P. J., Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort, and Spaeth, JJ. Opinion by Price, J. Spaeth, J., concurs in the result.
[ 237 Pa. Super. Page 434]
On December 26, 1974, appellant, Craig Miller, was adjudicated a delinquent and in violation of his probation as the result of his participation in an armed robbery of a gasoline station. The only issue raised on this appeal is whether the lower court erred in refusing to suppress the appellant's confession.*fn1
Testimony at the adjudication hearing established that at approximately noon on November 25, 1974, Craig Miller and two other boys, Anthony Towson and Douglas Tucker, walked into the Pottstown Police Department and informed the desk attendant that they had heard they were wanted as suspects in a robbery. Towson was taken to the Detectives' Room, informed of his constitutional
[ 237 Pa. Super. Page 435]
rights, and questioned about the armed robbery of Bart's Sunoco Station on November 14, 1974. Towson admitted that he had acted as a "lookout," and stated that Craig Miller had committed the robbery by pointing a gun at the attendant, demanding money, and walking away with about $300. Towson later signed a three-page statement to the same effect.
Craig Miller was then interviewed by police detectives. Although Miller denied that he was informed of his rights prior to any questioning, two detectives and a police secretary testified that he had been so advised. During the course of the interview, appellant orally admitted his participation in the robbery. Following his statement, appellant was placed in a cell while the police contacted a juvenile probation officer at Montgomery Hall concerning placement. The detective also attempted to contact appellant's parents, and after several efforts failed, finally located appellant's father at work.*fn2 He was returned to the detectives' office, where he reiterated his earlier statement. On this occasion, the confession was typed by the secretary and signed by Miller.*fn3
At the hearing, both Miller and Towson denied that they had robbed the service station, and testified that they signed the confessions because they wanted to stay out of jail.*fn4 A motion to suppress the confession on the basis of coercion was denied by the lower court judge, who specifically credited the testimony of the police and discredited that of appellant and Towson.
[ 237 Pa. Super. Page 436]
Appellant now contends that the lower court erred in refusing to suppress the statement because he had not been afforded the opportunity to consult with his parents or an attorney at the ...