Under state law, that ruling implied a finding that the confession was notlegally involuntary. (Evid. Code, § 402, subd. (c) ["[a] ruling on the admissibility of evidence implies whateverfinding offact is prerequisite thereto; a separate or formal finding is unnecessary unless required by statute"]; People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 406 [citing People v. Daniels (1969) | Cal. App. 3d 367, 374, and invoking quoted language from Evidence Code section 402 (c) where capital appellant complainedoftrial court failure to rule on voluntariness of confession].) “An express finding on the record on [voluntariness and Miranda issues] need not be made; such findings will be implied from the court's order admitting the confession into evidence.”