Case Name: Phillip GUZMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2007-11-07
Citations: 971 So. 2d 862
Docket Number: No. 3D05-2933
Parties: Phillip GUZMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before GREEN, ROTHENBERG, and SALTER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 971
Pages: 862–862

Head Matter:
Phillip GUZMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 3D05-2933.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov. 7, 2007.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 16, 2008.
Paul Morris, Miami, for appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Douglas J. Glaid and Laura Moszer, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
Before GREEN, ROTHENBERG, and SALTER, JJ.

Opinion:
ROTHENBERG, Judge.
The defendant, Phillip Guzman, appeals his convictions and sentences for grand theft of a vehicle and burglary of an unoccupied conveyance, arguing, in part, that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress statements he made to a police officer as the statements were made in response to the functional equivalent of interrogation, and therefore, the protections of Miranda were triggered. As the police officer's comment did not amount to the functional equivalent of interrogation, we conclude that the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress. See generally Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300-01, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980) (discussing that "Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent"). Moreover, as the remaining arguments raised by the defendant were not preserved for appellate review and/or lack merit, we affirm the defendant's convictions and sentences.
Affirmed.
. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).