claimed Miranda violation in California

2023We independently determine from [those facts] whether the challenged statements were illegally obtained.”’” (People v. Elizalde (2015) 61 Cal.4th 523, 530 .) If an interview is recorded and the facts surrounding the admission are undisputed, we apply independent review.

2023We independently determine from [those facts] whether the challenged statement was illegally obtained.” ’ ” (People v. Elizalde (2015) 61 Cal.4th 523, 530 .) Because the trial court’s resolution of the disputed facts and inferences is supported by substantial evidence, we accept the trial court’s determination, and find no Miranda error at this stage.

2022We independently determine from [those facts] whether the challenged statement was illegally obtained.” ’ ” (People v. Elizalde (2015) 61 Cal.4th 523, 530 .) Further, “[we] apply federal standards in reviewing defendant’s claim that the challenged statements were elicited from him in violation of Miranda.” (People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1033 .) The rule of Miranda requires that before police may question a suspect during a custodial interrogation, the suspect must be advised of the right to remain silent and to an attorney and that any statements may be used against him or her in

2021We independently determine from [those facts] whether the challenged statement was illegally obtained.”’” (People v. Elizalde (2015) 61 Cal.4th 523, 530 .) Further, “[we] apply federal standards in reviewing defendant’s claim that the challenged statements were elicited from him in violation of Miranda.” (People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1033 .) C.

2021(People v. Lessie (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1152, 1169 (Lessie).) An implied waiver occurs when, after being apprised of his rights, a minor “willingly answer[s] questions after acknowledging that he understood those rights.” (Ibid.; Cruz, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 667 .) On review of a trial court’s ruling on a claimed Miranda violation, “‘we accept the trial court’s resolution of disputed facts and inferences, and its evaluations of credibility, if supported by substantial evidence.

2021(People v. Lessie (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1152, 1169 (Lessie).) An implied waiver occurs when, after being apprised of his rights, a minor “willingly answer[s] questions after acknowledging that he understood those rights.” (Ibid.; Cruz, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 667 .) On review of a trial court’s ruling on a claimed Miranda violation, “‘we accept the trial court’s resolution of disputed facts and inferences, and its evaluations of credibility, if supported by substantial evidence.

2023The reviewing court will then independently determine from those facts whether the challenged statements were illegally obtained, 6 Illinois v. Perkins (1990) 496 U.S. 292 (Perkins).

2023In Miranda, the Supreme Court adopted “a set of prophylactic measures requiring law enforcement officers to advise an accused of his right to remain silent and to have counsel present prior to any custodial interrogation.” (People v. Jackson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 269, 339 , internal citations omitted.) Once a suspect invokes the right to remain silent or the right to counsel, “the interrogation must cease.” (Ibid.) “A statement obtained in violation of a suspect’s Miranda rights may not be admitted to establish guilt in a criminal case.” (People v. Jackson, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 339 .) When review

2023In Miranda, the Supreme Court adopted “a set of prophylactic measures requiring law enforcement officers to advise an accused of his right to remain silent and to have counsel present prior to any custodial interrogation.” (People v. Jackson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 269, 339 , internal citations omitted.) Once a suspect invokes the right to remain silent or the right to counsel, “the interrogation must cease.” (Ibid.) “A statement obtained in violation of a suspect’s Miranda rights may not be admitted to establish guilt in a criminal case.” (People v. Jackson, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 339 .) When review

2022“In reviewing the trial court’s ruling on a claimed Miranda violation, ‘we accept the trial court’s resolution of disputed facts and inferences, and its evaluations of credibility, if supported by 8 Edwards held that a suspect who has invoked his or her Miranda right to counsel may not be “subject[ed] to further interrogation by the authorities” on any crime at all unless (1) counsel is present at the time of any further questioning, or (2) the suspect “himself initiates further communication, exchanges or conversations with the police.” (Edwards v. Arizona (1981) 451 U.S. 477 , 484–485.) 22 s

2021(People v. Leon, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 843; People v. Peoples (2016) 62 Cal.4th 718, 740 ; Elizalde, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 530 .) A statement obtained in violation of a suspect’s Miranda rights may not be admitted to establish guilt in the prosecution’s case- in-chief.

2021(People v. Krebs (2019) 8 Cal.5th 265 , 299 (Krebs); People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 751 .) When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a claimed Miranda violation, if an interview is recorded and the facts surrounding the admission are undisputed, we apply independent review.

2021(People v. Krebs (2019) 8 Cal.5th 265 , 299 (Krebs); People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 751 .) When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a claimed Miranda violation, if an interview is recorded and the facts surrounding the admission are undisputed, we apply independent review.

1988(Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 ].) He also contended he was denied the effective assistance of counsel as evidenced by trial counsel’s handling of the nystagmus evidence.

1988(Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 ].) He also contended he was denied the effective assistance of counsel as evidenced by trial counsel’s handling of the nystagmus evidence.