Background
Larry White, Jr. was released pending sentencing after pleading guilty to a firearm offense in another case. He entered the High Intensity Supervision Program under 24-hour home confinement with GPS monitoring. The next morning, a Metropolitan Police Department officer saw White holding a handgun on an Instagram livestream. Police asked the Pretrial Services Agency to confirm White’s location, conducted surveillance at his residence, and recovered a handgun beneath an SUV after White approached the vehicle.
Following a stipulated trial, White was convicted of carrying a pistol without a license while on release and related firearm and ammunition offenses. He challenged the denial of his suppression motion and separately sought relief under D.C. Code § 23-110, alleging that trial counsel failed to tell him about a plea offer under which the government would have dismissed the greater and remaining charges. The trial court denied the ineffective-assistance motion without a hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of suppression and White’s convictions. Considering the totality of the circumstances, it held that the Pretrial Services Agency’s limited disclosure of White’s GPS location to police was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. White had a diminished expectation of privacy because he had been adjudicated guilty and released under high-intensity supervision, knew from prior participation that the program involved GPS monitoring and possible disclosure to law enforcement, and was subjected only to a one-time location confirmation serving an immediate investigative purpose.
The court vacated the denial of White’s § 23-110 motion. It held that the trial court misapplied the prejudice standard by treating White’s declaration that he “would have most likely taken the plea” as insufficient. That statement could satisfy the required showing of a reasonable probability that he would have accepted the offer; certainty or proof by a preponderance was not required. The trial court must reconsider the remaining elements of plea-related prejudice on remand.
The court also held that White was entitled to a hearing on deficient performance. His declaration that counsel never advised him of the offer directly conflicted with counsel’s declarations that the offer was conveyed and White chose to preserve his suppression challenge. Because the existing record did not conclusively resolve that material factual dispute, denying the motion without a hearing was outside the trial court’s discretion.
Key Takeaways
- A one-time disclosure of a supervised releasee’s GPS location to police may be reasonable when the releasee has been adjudicated guilty, understands that monitoring data may be shared, and the disclosure serves an immediate investigative purpose.
- A defendant alleging loss of a plea offer must show a reasonable probability—not certainty or a preponderance—that the defendant would have accepted it.
- Conflicting declarations about whether counsel conveyed a plea offer ordinarily require a § 23-110 evidentiary hearing when the record does not conclusively foreclose relief.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the D.C. Court of Appeals’ GPS-monitoring precedent to a defendant who had been found guilty but was awaiting sentencing, while emphasizing the narrow, one-time nature of the location disclosure. The court did not decide the privacy expectations of defendants who have merely been charged and remain under pretrial supervision.
The ruling also reinforces the relatively low threshold for obtaining a hearing under § 23-110. Courts may not resolve a material credibility dispute on competing affidavits or demand more than a reasonable probability when assessing whether counsel’s alleged failure to communicate a plea offer caused prejudice.