State of Tennessee v. Albert Dejuan White

No. W2025-00253-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 27, 2026) · Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · February 27, 2026 · No. W2025-00253-CCA-R3-CD

Summary

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Albert Dejuan White’s Tipton County convictions for possession of at least twenty-six grams of cocaine with intent to deliver, possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The court held that the search-warrant affidavit established probable cause and a sufficient nexus to the residence, and it upheld the admission of evidence and statements obtained during the search. The court also concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
Writing for the Court
Matthew J. Wilson; Kyle A. Hixson; Steven W. Sword
Jurisdiction
Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
Decision date
February 27, 2026
Docket number
W2025-00253-CCA-R3-CD
Procedural posture
Defendant appealed as of right from convictions entered after a bench trial, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and statements and the sufficiency of the evidence.
Standard of review
Suppression-hearing factual findings are conclusive unless the evidence preponderates against them; application of law to facts is reviewed de novo. Probable-cause determinations supporting search warrants receive great deference. Sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed under whether any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Albert Dejuan White v. State of Tennessee
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

suppression of evidencefourth amendmentprobable causemiranda rightsappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedureconstitutional criminal procedureevidenceappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the search-warrant affidavit established probable cause and a sufficient nexus between the alleged drug activity and the residence.
  2. Whether White's challenges to the warrant's particularity, scope, and confidential informant reliability were waived because they were not raised with particularity below.
  3. Whether White's statements and the physical evidence discovered during execution of the warrant should have been suppressed under Miranda or the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine.
  4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for cocaine possession with intent to deliver, possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia.

Holdings

  1. The warrant affidavit established probable cause and a sufficient nexus between the controlled drug transactions and the residence. The trial court therefore properly denied the motion to suppress on that ground.
  2. White waived his challenges concerning particularity, scope, and confidential-informant reliability by failing to raise those specific grounds in his motion to suppress and motion for new trial, and he was not entitled to plain-error review because he did not request it.
  3. White waived his claim that his statements were fruits of an illegal search, and the claim also failed because the search warrant and search were valid.
  4. The majority held that White's statements directing officers to the drugs were not the product of custodial interrogation, so Miranda warnings were not required.
  5. Even if White's statements violated Miranda, suppression of the physical evidence discovered as a result would not be required absent actual coercion or an unrespected invocation of the right to remain silent or counsel; in any event, admission of the statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
  6. The evidence was sufficient to support all three convictions.

Key quotations

In our view, the information in the affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause and, specifically, to satisfy the nexus requirement. (13)
We conclude that the record does not establish that Defendant was interrogated and, consequently, Miranda warnings were not required. (17)
In our view, the seizure of more than eighty grams of cocaine, scales, baggies, a loaded gun, and a large amount of cash from the residence Defendant shared with his elderly parents, particularly when coupled with Defendant’s recent drug sales at the residence to a confidential informant on three separate occasions and his leading officers directly to some of the seized drugs, was sufficient to support all his convictions. (21)

Factual background

Law-enforcement officers arranged three controlled cocaine purchases between White and a confidential informant at White's residence over three consecutive days, with surveillance and monitoring of the transactions. Based on those transactions, an investigator obtained a warrant authorizing a search of the residence, outbuildings, vehicles, and surrounding property. During execution of the warrant, officers found cocaine, drug paraphernalia, cash, and a shotgun in areas associated with White; White also threw two bags of cocaine into a ditch and led officers to cocaine in a shed. White made statements about showing officers where the drugs were while he was handcuffed and before receiving Miranda warnings.

Procedural history

A Tipton County grand jury indicted White for cocaine possession with intent to deliver, marijuana possession with intent to deliver, possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court denied his motion to suppress, the State dismissed the marijuana count, and the court convicted him after a bench trial on the remaining counts. The court imposed an aggregate sentence including consecutive imprisonment, denied White's motion for new trial, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…