P.

DISCUSSION

Gustafson’s sole claim on appeal is the court erred in admitting evidence of his statement to police because he invoked his right to an attorney under Miranda.

2 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 The basic rules applicable to defendant’s claims are well settled. “[W]e held in Miranda . . . , that a suspect subject to custodial interrogation has the right to consult with an attorney and to have counsel present during questioning, and that the police must explain this right to him before questioning begins. The right to counsel established in Miranda was one of a ‘series of recommended “procedural safeguards” . . . [that] were not themselves rights protected by the Constitution but were instead measures to insure that the right against compulsory self-incrimination was protected.’ [Citations.]” (Davis v. United States (1994) 512 U.S. 452, 457.) “[I]f a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking the right to counsel, [the Supreme Court’s] precedents do not require the cessation of…