Title: Matter of Cannon

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF 
MANDAMUS BY HALL ALTON 
CANNON 
§ 
§  No. 372, 2018 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 26, 2018 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
September 4, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
Upon consideration of the petition of Hall Alton Cannon for an 
extraordinary writ of mandamus and the State’s response in opposition, it 
appears to the Court that:  
(1) 
Cannon filed a document entitled “(Peremptory) Writ of 
Mandamus.”  Although it is not entirely clear, it appears that Cannon is asking 
this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Superior Court to declare 
that Cannon is not subject to the requirements of the sex offender registry.  
The State, as the real party in interest, has filed an answer and has moved to 
dismiss Cannon’s petition.   
(2) 
The record reflects that Cannon pled guilty in 1998 to second 
degree unlawful sexual contact and second degree assault in Cr. ID No. 
9709010268.  As part of its sentence, the Superior Court ordered Cannon to 
register as a sex offender.  In 2010, the Superior Court found Cannon guilty 
 
 2 
of failure to verify his address as a registered sex offender and sentenced him 
to probation in Cr. ID No. 1001004069.  In August 2017, Cannon again was 
charged with failure to verify his address as a registered sex offender in Cr. 
ID No. 1704012804.  Cannon failed to appear at his arraignment and a bench 
warrant was issued for his arrest.  That warrant remains outstanding.  On 
January 10, 2018, Cannon filed a motion for relief from the sex offender 
registry in the Superior Court.  The Superior Court denied the motion after 
Cannon failed to appear for the scheduled hearing.  Thereafter, Cannon filed 
this “peremptory” writ of mandamus. 
(3) 
This Court has authority to issue a writ of mandamus when the 
petitioner can demonstrate a clear right to the performance of a duty, no other 
adequate legal remedy is available, and the trial court arbitrarily failed or 
refused to perform its duty.1  When invoking this Court’s original jurisdiction 
to issue extraordinary relief, the burden is upon the petitioner to establish clear 
entitlement to that relief and that no other adequate remedy is available.2  
(4) 
Cannon has failed to carry his burden in this case.  Cannon filed 
a motion in the Superior Court seeking to have himself removed from the sex 
offender registry, but he failed to pursue the motion by failing to appear for 
                                                 
1 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
2 In re Wittrock, 649 A.2d 1053, 1054 (Del. 1994). 
 
 3 
the scheduled hearing.  Cannon clearly had an adequate legal remedy in the 
Superior Court and appellate processes and failed to pursue this remedy.  He 
cannot use the extraordinary writ process as a substitute.3  Moreover, he has 
not established his right to be removed from the registry. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Cannon’s petition for a 
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice  
 
                                                 
3 In re Hyson, 649 A.2d 807, 808 (Del. 1994).