of circumstances — that he was a minor and could not waive his rights, that the statement was taken during the early morning hours, that he had been found asleep in a car, and that a portion of the statement was not written by him.' — • these circumstances, either alone or combined, do not establish that the statement was involuntary. In fact, the testimony at trial from the two officers who took the statement shows that the statement was clearly voluntary. The testimony at trial showed that Duncan was read his rights, that he did not appear to be intoxicated or incapacitated, that he was not threatened or coerced into giving a statement, and that he waived his right to have his parents present during the questioning. (R. 452-505); see Ex parte Smith, 611 So.2d 1023, 1025 (Ala.1992) (<HOLDING>). “... Duncan has failed to provide any facts
holding testimony that defendant had no response to question during police interview was not impermissible comment on his constitutional right to remain silent where defendant had voluntarily waived his miranda rights holding that the right to have counsel present means the right to have counsel physically present during the interrogation not merely the right to consult an attorney by telephone holding that smith who was 15 years old could waive his miranda rights and his right to have an attorney or parent present during questioning by police holding that defendants request to call his mother to get an attorney was an invocation of miranda rights requiring that further questioning must end recognizing that defendant may waive miranda rights