Title: Cannon v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
EDWARD A. CANNON, JR.,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 120, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 0801035853 
§                      0503002811 
§                      0608007385 
§                      0802007619 
 
                                         Submitted: May 2, 2012 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 1, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 1st day of June 2012, 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, Edward A. Cannon, Jr., filed an 
appeal from the Superior Court’s February 23, 2012 violation of probation 
(“VOP”) sentencing order.  The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has 
moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is 
 
2
manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  
We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that, in July 2005, Cannon entered 
a plea of guilty to two counts of Robbery in the Second Degree.  He was 
sentenced to a total of 10 years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended 
after successful completion of the Gateway Program for 2 years at Level III 
probation.  Thereafter, Cannon was found to have committed VOPs in 
January 2006, June 2006 and July 2008.  During this period, he was 
convicted of the additional charges of Robbery in the Second Degree, 
Misdemeanor Theft, Resisting Arrest and Disregarding a Police Signal.  
 
(3) 
On February 23, 2012, the Superior Court again found Cannon 
in violation of his probation.  The finding was based upon new convictions 
as well as technical violations.  The Superior Court’s VOP sentencing order 
reflects the following:  Cannon was discharged as unimproved for violating 
the first of his second degree robbery sentences.  He was discharged as 
unimproved for violating his sentence for misdemeanor theft.  He was 
sentenced to 4 years at Level V, to be suspended after successful completion 
of the Key Program for decreasing levels of supervision, for violating the 
second of his second degree robbery sentences.  He was sentenced to Level 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
3
III probation for violating his sentences for resisting arrest and disregarding 
a police signal.  Finally, Cannon was sentenced to 3 years at Level V, to be 
suspended for 18 months at Level III probation, for violating the third of his 
second degree robbery sentences.  The sentencing order reflects that this last 
sentence was intended to account for all the Level V time Cannon had 
previously served. 
 
(4) 
In his appeal from the Superior Court’s February 23, 2012 VOP 
sentencing order, Cannon asserts several claims, which may fairly be 
summarized as follows:  a) his violations should have been considered by 
the Board of Parole, not the Superior Court, because he was on conditional 
release; b) there was insufficient evidence presented to support the 
violations; c) the Superior Court abused its discretion by failing to consider 
mitigating circumstances such as his ill health and recent employment; d) his 
sentence is inappropriately harsh; e) his sentence violates principles of 
double jeopardy; and f) his counsel provided ineffective assistance at the 
VOP hearing. 
 
(5) 
None of Cannon’s claims has merit.  As to his first claim, while 
an offender on conditional release remains under the authority of the Board 
of Parole on a charge of violating the terms of his release,2 the Superior 
                                                 
2 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §4352. 
 
4
Court nevertheless has jurisdiction over a VOP committed by the offender 
and may revoke the offender’s unexecuted probation and impose sentence.3  
As to Cannon’s claims of error and abuse of discretion at the VOP hearing, 
he has failed to provide this Court with a transcript of the VOP proceedings.  
As such, we are lacking the necessary record to evaluate those claims, 
precluding appellate review.4  Cannon’s claims of error with respect to his 
VOP sentence are likewise without merit.  His sentences are within the 
statutory maximum5 and do not implicate double jeopardy.6  As for 
Cannon’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, assuming that Cannon has 
the right to pursue it,7 this Court will not consider such a claim for the first 
time on direct appeal.8     
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this 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. 
 
                                                 
3 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §4333(a); Austin v. State, No. 697, 2010, Holland, J. (June 20, 
2011). 
4 Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987); Supr. Ct. R. 9(e) (ii) and 14(e). 
5 Ward v. State, 567 A.2d 1296, 1297 (Del. 1989). 
6 Williams v. State, 796 A.2d 1281, 1284-85 (Del. 2002). 
7 McGeehan v. State, Del. Supr., No. 145, 2006, Holland, J. (Oct. 16, 2006). 
8 Duross v. State, 494 A.2d 1265, 1267 (Del. 1985). 
 
5
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice