Can a defendant argue that his confession was involuntary based on coercive and deceptive tactics?

Based on our review of the record, we conclude that defendant did not claim in the trial court that the police used coercive and deceptive tactics, which would have rendered his statements involuntary. (See McCurdy, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 1088.) Rather, defendant asked the trial court to "review[] the transcript of the [police] interview . . . to decide whether or not he invoked his rights under Miranda." (Italics added.) Accordingly, to the extent that defendant contends that his statements were involuntary based on the interview tactics employed, defendant's claim has been waived. (See People v. Benson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 754, 770, 782, fn. 5 [defendant who claimed in the trial court that confession was involuntary because detective commented that " '[t]here's no death penalty here,' " could not raise on appeal "other arguments attacking other aspects of the interrogation (e.g., 'psychological coercion,' 'deception,' and 'threats')."].)