What is the current state of the law on Miranda warnings?

Miranda warnings are only required when a person is subjected to custodial interrogations. (Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. at p. 444.) A custodial interrogation occurs when a law enforcement officer questions a suspect after placing him or her under formal arrest, or restrains the suspect's freedom of movement to the degree associated with a formal arrest. (California v. Beheler (1983) 463 U.S. 1121, 1125.) No evidence in the record supports the premise defendant was ever in custody prior to his arrest. Nor is

Page 21

there any evidence defendant gave any other statement prior to receiving his Miranda rights. Of course, trial counsel has no duty to make futile or frivolous motions. (People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 834, overruled on other grounds in People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172, 181, fn. 2.)

Furthermore, when the "'"record on appeal sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged[,]... unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation," the claim on appeal must be rejected.' [Citations.]" (People v. Mendoza Tello, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 266.) On this record we cannot say counsel's failure to object constituted either deficient performance or was not the result of a reasoned tactical decision. Instead, it is quite likely no objection was made because defense counsel had no information defendant ever made any prior statements in violation of Miranda. (See People v. Mendoza Tello, supra, at pp. 266-267.)