and King on October 27, he terminated the interview by telling them “he didn’t want to talk any more.” Defendant acted thusly even though Bullock and King had not given him a Miranda warning. This hardly bespeaks a person so unsophisticated, unintelligent, and uninformed that he could not understand the context of what was occurring. This view is strengthened by Defendant’s conduct after he was given juvenile Miranda warnings. The first Miranda warning was given him near midnight on October 27. After the warning, Defendant assured the juvenile officer he understood and wanted to waive his rights, and he declared he did not want Mother present. After giving officers what he apparently believed were non-inculpatory facts, Defendant decided to exercise one of the rights about which h 986) (<HOLDING>). In so stating, we do not ignore Defendant’s
holding that a retiree with a sixth grade education who was given little time to review the terms had stated a claim holding that the record did not belie the claimants iq of 58 where he attended special education classes did not live independently and dropped out of school at a low grade either in the sixth or eighth grade holding that trial court abused its discretion in denying petitioners request for counsel in evidentiary hearing where petitioner had requested counsel and had indicated in his motion that all documents had been prepared by prison law clerk he had only ninthgrade education he had no training in the law and he lacked the skills necessary to participate in hearing holding an accused with a sixth or seventh grade education who testified at suppression hearing that he had asked for a lawyer  although disbelieved by the trial court  indicated his familiarity with his rights holding representation at a suppression hearing by lawyer disbarred on final day of hearing not per se ineffective