When reviewing the voluntariness of a defendant's statements, or of improper police conduct, is the Miranda waiver violation or Miranda waiver violated?

Under either theoryMiranda waiver violation or improper police conductwhen reviewing the voluntariness of a defendant's statements, we engage in a two-part analysis. First, we review whether substantial evidence supports the trial court's resolution of disputed facts and inferences, including its evaluation of credibility of witnesses. (People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 751-752 [Miranda waiver], 752 [improper police conduct].) Second, based on the supported facts, we independently review the trial court's legal determination. (Id. at p. 751.)

Page 10

Under the substantial evidence test, we review the whole record in a light most favorable to the order denying suppression (People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 969) to determine whether it discloses "evidence ' "reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value; it must actually be 'substantial' proof of the essentials which the law requires in a particular case" ' " (People v. Samuel (1981) 29 Cal.3d 489, 505). In our review of the record we consider only the substantiality of the evidence in support of the ruling actually made, not whether other evidence in the record " 'might also be reasonably reconciled with a contrary finding.' " (People v. Snead (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 380, 384 [sufficiency of evidence in support of ruling on motion to suppress].)