Title: Cannon v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
 
 
ALTON CANNON,                             ) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Defendant-Below,  
) 
 
 
Appellant 
 
 
)  
No. 75, 2003 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
Court Below—Superior Court 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
) 
of the State of Delaware  
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
in and for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
Cr. A. No. VN97-1108-02 
STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Plaintiff-Below, 
 
) 
 
 
Appellee 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:      July 15, 2003 
 
 
 
 
Decided:    August 25, 2003 
 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, STEELE and JACOBS, Justices 
 
ORDER 
 
This   25th day of August, 2003, upon consideration of the briefs 
submitted by the parties, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1)  The defendant-appellant, Alton Cannon (“Cannon”), appeals from 
an Order, entered on January 23, 2003, determining that Cannon had 
violated his probation, revoking his probation, and reimposing his  original 
sentence.  Cannon advances two grounds on his appeal. The first is that the 
trial court erred by not ordering, sua sponte, a contested violation of 
 
2
probation hearing, because Cannon disputed the charge that he had violated 
his  probation.  The second ground is that the trial court erred by not 
crediting Cannon with the four months he served at the Sussex Violation of 
Probation (VOP) Center. 
  
(2) Respecting his first contention, it is undisputed that Cannon never 
advised the trial court that he contested the violation of probation charge. 
Nor did he request a postponement of the violation of probation hearing so 
that he could subpoena witnesses, or ever raise his second contention in the 
trial court.  Because Cannon presents these claims for the first time on 
appeal, they must be reviewed under a standard of plain error.1  
 
(3)   A revocation of probation for violating conditions of probation 
involves an “exercise of broad discretionary power.”2  In this case, Cannon 
had notice of the violation of probation hearing, which he attended, and he 
was also afforded the opportunity to speak in open court.  The trial court, 
before ruling, reviewed a report that was submitted by Cannon’s job 
counselor, describing the circumstances that caused her to feel threatened by 
Cannon’s  behavior.  That report, the court found, was competent evidence 
of a violation of probation.  The court found that Cannon had violated his 
                                                 
1 Hall v. State, 2001 WL 1388678 , 784 A.2d 1080 (Del. 2001), citing Wainwright v. 
State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986). 
2 Brown v. State,  249 A.2d 269, 272 (Del. 1968). 
 
3
probation, and sentenced him accordingly.  In these circumstances, that 
determination did not constitute error, let alone plain error. 
 
(4)   Cannon’s second ground for appeal is that the four months he 
served at the VOP Center should have been credited to him as “time served,” 
because the VOP Center is not, in reality, a Level IV facility, but actually is 
a Level V prison.  The record shows that Cannon did serve four months at 
the Sussex VOP Center, and that he is currently on Level III or Level II 
probation in accordance with his sentence.  Nothing in the record shows the 
contrary.  As of this time, Cannon is not currently being housed in a Level V 
facility, because his two year sentence at Level V has been suspended.  
Therefore, Cannon’s claim that the four months served at the Sussex VOP 
should be credited as Level V time, is premature.  That claim will not 
become ripe (if ever) unless and until Cannon commits a new violation of 
probation that causes the Level V portion of his sentence to be reinstated. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT the Order of the 
Superior Court finding appellant to have violated his probation, and 
reinstating the appellant’s original sentence, is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice