Slayton was interrogated by police officers concerning an uncharged burglary after his right to counsel attached on a vehicle theft charge. The Court of Appeal held that appellant Slayton’s statements regarding his involvement in the burglary were properly suppressed because the burglary was inextricably intertwined with the vehicle theft. (The crimes involved the same victim and location, and appellant obtained the keys to the vehicle during the burglary.) After the California Supreme Court granted review, the United States Supreme Court held in Texas v. Cobb (2001) 532 U.S. 162, that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to uncharged offenses which are inextricably intertwined factually with the charged offenses. Here, the Supreme Court, following Cobb, held that the trial court erred when it suppressed the statements regarding the burglary. However, the trial court did not err when it suppressed statements made regarding the vehicle theft, because appellant’s right to counsel had attached at the time he made the statements.