NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

ELEUTERIO MUNOZ SANCHEZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0116

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2013-431155-001 

The Honorable Ronald J. Steinle, Judge

The Honorable Brian D. Kaiser, Commissioner

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General, Phoenix

By Alice Jones, Assistant Attorney General

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender, Phoenix

By Cory Engle

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. SANCHEZ

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Maurice Portley joined.

T H O M P S O N, Judge:

¶1 Eleuterio Munoz Sanchez (defendant) appeals from his 

conviction and sentence on one count of possession or use of a narcotic 

drug, a class 4 felony. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Defendant was in his parked truck in a bank parking lot when

a sheriff’s deputy observed him conduct a brief transaction with a second 

individual who was also in a parked vehicle.

1 The two vehicles were 

parked in “patrolman’s position,” with their driver doors next to one 

another. Defendant then drove out of the parking lot and the deputy 

followed, believing that a drug transaction had occurred. Defendant 

committed several traffic violations and the deputy pulled defendant over. 

The deputy asked defendant for his drivers’ license, and defendant stated 

that he did not have one. The deputy asked defendant to exit his truck and 

he did so. The deputy then told defendant that he knew defendant had 

drugs and asked him where they were located. Defendant admitted that he 

had drugs in his wallet on the front seat of his truck and showed the wallet 

to the deputy. The deputy found .24 grams of cocaine in the wallet; he then 

handcuffed defendant. 

¶3 The deputy read defendant his Miranda rights in English, had 

him read a card with Miranda rights in Spanish, and interviewed him inside 

his police vehicle. Defendant admitted the cocaine belonged to him and 

stated that he had bought it from a friend for twenty dollars. The state 

charged defendant with one count of possession or use of a narcotic drug, 

a class 4 felony; a jury convicted him as charged. 

 

1 The Sheriff’s Office’s narcotics unit had the second individual, a suspected 

drug dealer, under surveillance for some time before he pulled into the 

bank parking lot.
STATE v. SANCHEZ

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 The trial court suspended the imposition of sentencing and 

placed defendant on supervised probation for one year. Defendant timely 

appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes

(A.R.S.) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2010), and -4033(A) (2010).

DISCUSSION

¶5 Defendant raises one issue on appeal: whether the trial court 

abused its discretion in denying his motions to suppress his pre-Miranda

and post-Miranda statements. We review the trial court’s decision to admit 

a defendant’s statement for an abuse of discretion. State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 

116, 126, ¶ 25, 140 P.3d 899, 909 (2006). We review only the evidence 

presented at the suppression hearing, and we view the evidence in the light 

most favorable to upholding the trial court’s factual findings. State v. Fornof, 

218 Ariz. 74, 76, ¶ 8, 179 P.3d 954, 956 (App. 2008). We review the trial 

court’s conclusions of law de novo. State v. Zamora, 220 Ariz. 63, 67, ¶ 7, 202 

P.3d 528, 532 (App. 2009). A defendant’s statements to police during a 

custodial interrogation cannot be used against him at trial unless he has 

been given Miranda warnings. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 475 (1966). 

Custodial interrogation is “questioning initiated by law enforcement 

officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of 

his freedom of action in any significant way.” Id. at 444.

¶6 Defendant argues that the deputy improperly subjected him 

to a custodial interrogation when he questioned him about the drugs prior 

to giving defendant Miranda warnings. We disagree. After the deputy 

pulled defendant over, he approached defendant’s truck and spoke with 

defendant. He identified himself as a deputy with the Maricopa County 

Sheriff’s Office, and asked defendant for his license. After defendant told 

the deputy he did not have a license, the deputy said, “Do me a favor. Hop 

out of the car.” Defendant did so, and the deputy then stated, “Listen, you 

can tell by the way I am dressed I’m not a normal cop. . . . Do me a favor, 

you know you got drugs. I know you got drugs. Just give them to me.” 

Defendant, who was still unrestrained, appeared surprised and told the 

deputy that the drugs were in his wallet. Defendant made a movement as 

thought he would go with the deputy to show him the wallet on the front 

seat of his vehicle, and the deputy said, “No, no, no, hang on.” Defendant 

pointed at his wallet and the deputy retrieved it from the vehicle. Only 

then did the deputy handcuff defendant. The deputy put defendant in his 

police vehicle, read him his Miranda rights, and conducted a formal 

interview of defendant.
STATE v. SANCHEZ

Decision of the Court

4

¶7 Defendant argues that he was not free to leave when he was 

initially questioned by the deputy, and that “[t]he point short of formal 

arrest, where roadside investigative questioning became custodial 

interrogation” had already occurred. Courts look at the objective 

circumstances of an interrogation rather than a defendant’s subjective 

believe as to whether he is in custody, and will consider three factors in 

determining whether an individual is in custody: “(1) the site of the 

questioning; (2) whether objective indicia of arrest are present; and (3) the 

length and form of the interrogation.” State v. Cruz-Mata, 138 Ariz. 370, 373, 

674 P.2d 1368, 1371 (1983). Here, the deputy’s initial questioning of 

defendant took place on the side of the road next to his vehicle, and the 

questioning was brief. The deputy did not handcuff defendant during the 

questioning, draw a weapon on him, or use force, threats or compulsion to 

obtain defendant’s statement. That the deputy suspected defendant of 

having committed a drug crime does not change the analysis. See State v. 

Stabler, 162 Ariz. 370, 372, 783 P.2d 816, 818 (App. 1989) (officer who 

reasonably suspected defendant had committed a drug transaction, pulled 

him over and briefly questioned him not required to read the defendant his 

Miranda rights before obtaining statements). Accordingly, the trial court 

did not abuse its discretion in determining that a custodial interrogation 

had not yet occurred when defendant told the deputy he had drugs in his 

wallet.

¶8 Because Miranda warnings were not required until the deputy 

handcuffed defendant and interviewed him in the back of his police vehicle, 

we do not address defendant’s argument that the statements he made after 

Miranda warnings were given must be suppressed as “products of the prior 

tainted statements” pursuant to Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004).
STATE v. SANCHEZ

Decision of the Court

5

CONCLUSION

¶9 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm defendant’s conviction 

and the imposition of probation.