"The prosecution had to prove by a preponderance of evidence that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. A valid waiver may be express or implied. Although it may not be inferred 'simply from the silence of the accused after warnings are given or simply from the fact that a confession was in fact eventually obtained' , it may be inferred where 'the actions and words of the person interrogated' clearly imply it. "In determining whether a defendant waived his Miranda rights, the court must consider 'the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation.' In Moran v. Burbine (1986) 475 U.S. 412,..., the court identified two distinct components of the inquiry: 'First, the relinquishment of the right must have been voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception. Second, the waiver must have been made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it. Only if the "totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation" reveals both an uncoerced choice and the requisite level of comprehension may a court properly conclude that the Miranda rights have been waived. ... ... Once it is determined that a suspect's decision not to rely on his rights was uncoerced, that he at all times knew he could stand mute and request a lawyer, and that he was aware of the State's intention to use his statements to secure a conviction, the analysis is complete and the waiver is valid as a matter of law.' "On appeal, we accept the trial court's resolution of disputed facts and inferences, and its evaluation of credibility, if supported by substantial evidence. " (People v. Cortes (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 62, 69-70.)