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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

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

C ounsel for AppellantSTATE 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 a nd 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 d oors 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 b efore he pulled i nto 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. Defend a nt timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12

- 120.2 1(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 motion s 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

cour t’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. Mir anda 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 Defend ant 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 s poke with

defendant. He identified himself as a deputy with the Maric o pa 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.” Defe ndant 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 surpr ised 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 wal let 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 forma l

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 int errogation 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 prese nt; 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 defend ant 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 wa rnings 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 mus t be suppressed as “products of t he 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.