1. ClfMint's _ ri&tf VnJ&/ rtir<Mck
V. c ~h^i c* F~) ■%'bk <ind *Hi Airi& /idw7€-h'j 'S ^<4.^
^ov/'^ anj V6lvni'<zry wk&hC' d-&fe'Of->v r& VS&J
O^crrec^i^ j~<ic,fic£ on Gt) impaired <%Pf&\l<ZHt <wd> vsketi
. ,€, toyckelo&CAt C0*rc»cH m rt& -Pdf" op^ mfjicJ Itsiiwcy rcnJtS Con-Pegs/on
+hv c$ cW FourfwyHK
'g-j'irz-r ciPP&l/twpf' S r'3& "ho P&/$oqcU au-t'anoW/ Umdt>h c
ZtXfi* Am&ulW&hh,(«[ Cdcy K L&otSjcwci <2.cI$)„[ s,s^£2 jo* L.Ej xGZ.\t\3&
S,c+. /focO/Wy^^ K eJJy CzvicO 33 CrtiApp.p* Hli) \rPolaycJ
to^4s£>7 +Tt<il C<?<ii\$&l C-OkiCs£cl€,J £fv// lb ai Cl<s£w* <*<
->W * C-0 l1ge'i4*fc

Whether appellant's waiver of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary