GUZMAN V. STATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2007 Opinion filed November 7, 2007. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D05-2933 Lower Tribunal No. 04-32378 ________________ Phillip Guzman, Appellant, vs. The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose M. Rodriguez, Judge. Paul Morris, for appellant. Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Douglas J. Glaid and Laura Moszer, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee. Before GREEN, ROTHENBERG, and SALTER, JJ. 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 1 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 (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. 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
