Does a defendant who is read his Miranda rights knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waive their right to remain silent have knowingly waived their rights?

inconsistent with their exercise has made a deliberate choice to relinquish the protection those rights afford." (Id. at p. 385.) Thus, even without an express waiver, a defendant who is read his Miranda rights, confirms that he understands them, and actively participates in the conversation with detectives without physical or psychological pressure has knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his rights. (People v. Parker (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1184, 1216.)

The record shows that appellant impliedly waived his right to remain silent. After the Miranda advisement, he participated in the conversation and never asked for the questioning to stop or to consult with an attorney. The evidence supports a finding that his statements were not obtained through coercion, intimidation or deception. The transcript shows that the detectives treated appellant respectfully and sympathetically. They invited him to tell them what happened "in your words." The questioning was brief: appellant was not "worn down" by aggressive tactics, trickery or deceit. (People v. Whitson (1998) 17 Cal.4th 229, 248-249.)

Examining the totality of the circumstances, including the background, experience and conduct of the accused (North Carolina v. Butler (1979) 441 U.S. 369, 374-375), we determine that there is no basis to conclude that appellant misunderstood his rights. The trial court asked defense counsel to elaborate upon appellant's ability to comprehend. Counsel described appellant as "slower than other[s]" his age. However, any claim of an intellectual deficit is belied by appellant's lack of special education classes while growing up; his years in college; his maturity in aspiring to a career in nursing; and his employment at a restaurant. Appellant may have been nervous or

Page 8

embarrassed during his interview, but he was not uncomprehending.