Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Commonwealth v. White

Supreme Court of Virginia

June 1, 2017

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
v.
LASHANT LEONARDO WHITE

         FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

          PRESENT: Lemons, C.J., Goodwyn, McClanahan, Powell, Kelsey, and McCullough, JJ., and Millette, S.J.

          OPINION

          D. ARTHUR KELSEY, JUSTICE

         After denying a motion to suppress, the trial court convicted Lashant Leonardo White of possession of heroin with the intent to distribute, third or subsequent offense, in violation of Code § 18.2-248.[1] The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court had erred in denying White's motion to suppress and further held that the error was not harmless. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the conviction.

         I.

         A.

         On appeal, we state the facts "in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, giving it the benefit of any reasonable inferences." Evans v. Commonwealth, 290 Va. 277, 280, 776 S.E.2d 760, 761 (2015) (citation omitted). "This standard requires us 'to give due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and local law enforcement officers.'" Id. (quoting Jones v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 521, 528, 690 S.E.2d 95, 99 (2010)).

         When considering whether to affirm the denial of a pretrial suppression motion, an appellate court reviews not only the evidence presented at the pretrial hearing but also the evidence later presented at trial. See Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162 (1925) ("If the evidence given on the trial was sufficient, as we think it was, to sustain the introduction of the [contested evidence], it is immaterial that there was an inadequacy of evidence when application was made for its return. A conviction on adequate and admissible evidence should not be set aside on such a ground."); Ricks v. Commonwealth, 39 Va.App. 330, 336 n.3, 573 S.E.2d 266, 269 n.3 (2002) (applying the principle described in Carroll); DePriest v. Commonwealth, 4 Va.App. 577, 583, 359 S.E.2d 540, 542-43 (1987) (same); see also United States v. Han, 74 F.3d 537, 539 (4th Cir. 1996) (noting that "federal courts have held uniformly that an appellate tribunal may consider evidence adduced at trial that supports the district judge's ruling" made at a pretrial suppression hearing).[2]

         B.

         One evening in October 2013, three Norfolk police investigators responded to a citizen's complaint that narcotics activity was occurring at a local motel. That motel had been the situs of "numerous" similar complaints, J.A. at 58, and the location of "several" prior drug and prostitution arrests, id. at 61. One of the investigators testified that prior suspects revealed the motel as being "their area of choice as far as meeting and making these [drug] transactions." Id. at 58. It was a "known drug motel, " id. at 70, and a virtual "breeding ground for drugs and prostitution, " id. at 120-21.

         Upon arriving at the motel, the investigators saw White standing in the parking lot. A vehicle came into the lot, circled around, and its driver eventually stopped to talk to White. He walked up to the driver's side window and began "leaning" into the vehicle with both arms inside. Id. at 122, 136. He later emerged out of the window with a handful of cash in one hand and a cell phone in the other. Based upon their experience and training, the investigators believed that White had engaged in a drug transaction. Though they did not see the transfer of any specific narcotics as White leaned into the vehicle, all of the other circumstances suggested that such a transfer had likely occurred. Id. at 74.

         The investigators approached White, mentioned their suspicions, and asked for permission to search him. After White had consented, the officers searched him and found on his person:

■ three baggies of heroin, consisting of 4.306 grams of "raw heroin" that had not been "cut" or diluted for retail sale, packaged in three different weights: approximately 1/8 ounce (or "3.53 grams"), 1 gram, and 1/2 gram, id. at 130-32;
■ $644 in currency consisting of 31 twenty-dollar bills, 1 ten-dollar bill, 2 five-dollar bills, and 4 one-dollar bills, which were organized by "denominations in different pockets, " id. at 129-30;
■ two cell phones, id. at 129; and
■ one baggie with .839 grams of marijuana, Commonwealth's Ex. 6.

         The investigators found no drug paraphernalia on White that would have allowed him to use either the heroin or the marijuana.

         After his arrest, White asked the investigators to "find his girlfriend Tanya at Room 219" of the motel. J. A. at 87. He did not claim that he had rented the room or suggest that any of his personal property would be found there. Nor did he voice any objection to the police searching the room when he made his request. Pursuant to White's request, one of the investigators went to the motel room and knocked on the door. A woman named "Tanya" opened the door and let the investigator in after he had explained that White had been arrested.

         Tanya "seemed to have control of the room, " which led the investigator to believe that she was "the lessee of the room." Id. at 88. The investigator asked for permission to search the room, and she agreed. During the search, the investigator found a gray plastic bag on the bed. Tanya volunteered that the bag "belonged" to White. Id. at 87. She said nothing, however, to disclaim either her apparent joint possession of the bag or her access to it. Nor did she at any time "object to [the investigator] looking in the bag." Id. at 93. Hearing no such ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.