In what circumstances have we found no evidence of coercion or coercion by the detective who interviewed defendant in a sexual assault case?

Moreover, in his personal brief, defendant seems to be challenging the interrogation techniques of the detective who interviewed defendant. In essence, defendant argues that the officer's repeated questions made defendant confess to a crime he did not commit so he could "walk home." We have reviewed the record and find no evidence of coercion by the officer. Even if we were to assume that defendant's confession was coerced and the court erred in admitting the statement, we review such error "in the context of other evidence presented" to determine whether the admission of his statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 308.) Here, there was overwhelming evidencewithout defendant's confessionto support defendant's convictions. Therefore, we find any alleged error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Page 10

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

The judgment is affirmed.