Does a defendant have any confusion about his right to refuse to speak and to have an attorney present?

We do not regard this confusion, assuming it was genuine, to represent an inability to understand "both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it." (People v. Sauceda-Contreras, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 219.) There is no reason to doubt defendant when he told the officers that he understood he had the right to refuse to speak and to have an appointed attorney present. Rather than demonstrating confusion about his rights, defendant's expectation that an attorney should already have been appointed for him reflects his understanding of these rights. In confirming his understanding, defendant was firm in responding several times that he did

Page 8