Title: Cannon v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RONALD L. CANNON, III, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 20, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0212005958 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  June 11, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided:  August 2, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 2nd day of August 2007, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Ronald L. Cannon, III, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s December 20, 2006 order denying his motion for 
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  The 
plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the judgment 
of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the 
opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and AFFIRM.   
 
2
 
(2) 
On April 8, 2003, Cannon pleaded guilty to Trafficking in 
Cocaine and Possession With Intent to Deliver Marijuana, and pleaded no 
contest to Possession of a Firearm By a Person Prohibited.  In exchange for 
his guilty plea, the State dismissed eleven additional drug, weapon and 
related charges.  Cannon was sentenced to a total of 9 years minimum 
mandatory Level V imprisonment on his three convictions.  He also was 
sentenced to a total of 6 years Level V imprisonment, suspended for 
decreasing levels of supervision, for a violation of probation.  Cannon did 
not file a direct appeal. 
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Cannon claims that his counsel provided 
ineffective assistance a) by failing to discover Brady material used by 
probation officers to secure an administrative search of his residence, request 
a suppression hearing, and request a Flowers hearing to learn the identity of 
a confidential informant, and b) by coercing him into accepting a guilty plea.   
 
(4) 
In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of 
counsel in connection with a guilty plea, a defendant must demonstrate that, 
but for his counsel’s unprofessional errors, he would not have pleaded 
guilty, but would have insisted on proceeding to trial.1  The defendant must 
                                                 
1 Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985). 
 
3
make concrete allegations of actual prejudice, and substantiate them, or risk 
summary dismissal.2  
 
(5) 
The transcript of Cannon’s guilty plea colloquy fatally 
undermines his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and a coerced 
guilty plea.  When asked by the judge if he had committed the offenses to 
which he was pleading guilty, he said yes.  When asked if he was satisfied 
with his counsel’s representation, he said yes.  When asked if he was being 
coerced into pleading guilty, he said no.  In the absence of clear and 
convincing evidence to the contrary, Cannon is bound by the representations 
he made during his guilty plea colloquy.3  We, therefore, conclude that 
Cannon’s claim is without merit. 
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of Cannon’s opening brief that his 
appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled 
by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is 
implicated, there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 556 (Del. 1990). 
3 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997). 
 
4
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  
The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice