Title: Cannon v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 556, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 19, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JULIUS CANNON,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 556, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0808006229 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 15, 2010 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: April 19, 2010 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 19th day of April 2010, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney’s motion to 
withdraw, and the State’s response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Julius Cannon, was found guilty by a 
Superior Court jury of Possession of a Firearm By a Person Prohibited and 
Conspiracy in the Second Degree.1  On the weapon conviction, Cannon was 
sentenced to 6 years of incarceration at Level V, to be followed by 6 months 
Level IV Halfway House.  On the conspiracy conviction, he was sentenced 
                                                 
1 Cannon was acquitted of 14 other charges, including robbery, burglary and theft.  The 
Superior Court dismissed an additional charge of rape. 
 
2 
to 2 years of incarceration at Level V, to be suspended for 1 year at Level III 
probation.  This is Cannon’s direct appeal. 
 
(2) 
Cannon’s trial counsel has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  The standard and scope of review 
applicable to the consideration of a motion to withdraw and an 
accompanying brief under Rule 26(c) is twofold:  (a) the Court must be 
satisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious examination of the 
record and the law for claims that could arguably support the appeal; and (b) 
the Court must conduct its own review of the record to determine whether 
the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably appealable issues that it 
can be decided without an adversary presentation.2 
 
(3) 
Cannon’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and 
complete examination of the record and the law, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Cannon’s counsel informed Cannon of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw, the accompanying brief and the complete trial transcript.  Cannon 
also was informed of his right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  
Cannon has responded with a brief that raises five issues for this Court’s 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Cannon’s 
                                                 
2 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 
U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 
 
3 
counsel as well as the issues raised by Cannon and has moved to affirm the 
Superior Court’s judgment. 
 
(4) 
Cannon raises five issues for this Court’s consideration.  He 
claims that a) there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support the 
conviction of second degree conspiracy; b) the jury’s questions to the judge 
during deliberations were not answered adequately; c) there was insufficient 
evidence presented at trial to support the weapon conviction; d) the charges, 
which stemmed from separate incidents, should have been severed; and e) 
the State’s witnesses presented inconsistent testimony.  
 
(5) 
The following evidence was presented at trial.  In the early 
morning of July 17, 2008, there was an armed home invasion at the 
residence of James and Corrine Jones in Harrington, Delaware.  The Joneses 
and Timothy Clokey, Corrine’s son, testified that five to six African 
American men entered the residence and stole, among other things, a 
number of firearms and electronic items such as an X-Box and DVD’s.  A 
neighbor, Daniel Lilly, testified that he saw a dark-colored 4-door sedan and 
several unknown individuals on the Jones property at the time of the 
incident.  James Jones testified in detail regarding the stolen items, including 
the serial numbers of the weapons.  Corrine Jones testified that she was 
sexually assaulted with the barrel of a firearm held by one of the men. 
 
4 
 
(6) 
Delaware State Police Detective Matthew Fuski was the 
investigating officer called to the scene of the home invasion.  He testified 
that his investigation of the incident was at a standstill when, on August 4, 
2008, he was notified by the Milford, Delaware police that, while 
investigating a trespassing complaint at Unit 214, Colony West Apartments, 
they had identified a firearm taken from Unit 221 that had been stolen in the 
home invasion.  After receiving permission to search Unit 214, additional 
items stolen in the home invasion were found.  Following the execution of a 
search warrant, still more items were found in Unit 220, where Cannon lived 
with co-defendants Theodore Singletary, Tykisha Hannah and Zipporah 
Long.   
 
(7) 
All of the items recovered from Colony West Apartments were 
taken to Troop 3, where the Joneses identified them as their stolen property.  
According to Detective Fuski, 80-85% of the items stolen from the Joneses 
were found in Units 214 and 220.  In a taped statement to Detective Fuski, 
Cannon admitted to having regular access to the apartments, to being in 
possession of a Playstation (later determined to have been stolen in the home 
invasion), and to owning a dark-colored Cadillac sedan (where a DVD 
player stolen in the home invasion was found).  Several witnesses testified 
that Cannon lived in Unit 220 with his girlfriend and had access to the other 
 
5 
units.  Cannon’s co-defendant, Keith Jones, testified that Cannon had placed 
the stolen items in Units 214 and 220.  In a statement to Detective Fuski, 
Jones also stated that Cannon told him he had assaulted a woman with a rifle 
barrel during a robbery.     
 
(8) 
Lieutenant Donald Baynard of the Delaware State Police 
testified that he apprehended two individuals named Antonio McCray and 
Tyrell Waters in connection with an unrelated robbery on August 14, 2009.  
A firearm with a serial number matching one that had been provided by 
James Jones was recovered in the robbery.  McCray, Waters, and another 
individual named Shanika Kirby all testified that Cannon had been involved 
with the sale of that firearm on or about August 3, 2008.  Cannon himself 
testified that he had pleaded guilty to Robbery in the Second Degree, a Class 
E felony, in 2002.3    
 
(9) 
Cannon’s first claim is that there was insufficient evidence 
presented at trial to support the charge of second degree conspiracy.4  In 
reviewing a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, this Court will uphold a 
                                                 
3 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §831. 
4 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §512 (A person is guilty of second degree conspiracy “when, 
intending to promote or facilitate the commission of a felony, the person . . . (1) [a]grees 
with another person or persons that they or 1 or more of them will engage in conduct 
constituting the felony or an attempt . . . to commit the felony: or (2) [a]grees to aid 
another person or persons in the planning or commission of the felony . . . and the person 
or another person with whom the person conspired commits an overt act in pursuance of 
the conspiracy.” 
 
6 
conviction as long as any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the 
light most favorable to the prosecution, could find the defendant guilty 
beyond a reasonable doubt.5  In this case, the trial transcript reflects that the 
statements and trial testimony of several witnesses, as well as Cannon’s own 
statement to police, directly connected Cannon either to the home invasion 
itself or to the property stolen during the home invasion.  Although the jury 
declined to convict Cannon of the underlying crimes of robbery, burglary 
and rape, it, nevertheless, had more than sufficient evidence before it to 
conclude that Cannon was guilty of conspiring to commit those crimes.  As 
such, we conclude that Cannon’s first claim is without merit.   
 
(10) Cannon’s second claim is that the jury’s questions to the judge 
during deliberations were not answered adequately.  The record reflects that, 
during deliberations on June 4, 2009, the jury asked the trial judge three 
questions:  a) whether the charge of possession of a firearm by a person 
prohibited was limited to the July 2008 home invasion; b) whether an 
accused could be found guilty of second degree conspiracy, but not guilty of 
the underlying crime of robbery; and c) whether the jury’s verdict had to be 
unanimous.  In response to those questions, the judge told the jury, in 
essence, that they should carefully review the jury instructions.  Because the 
                                                 
5 Word v. State, 801 A.2d 927, 929 n. 7 (Del. 2002). 
 
7 
judge’s response to the questions was legally accurate and avoided any 
comment on the evidence,6 we conclude that there was no error.  Therefore, 
we conclude that Cannon’s second claim is without merit. 
 
(11) Cannon next claims that there was insufficient evidence 
presented at trial to support the charge of possession of a firearm by a person 
prohibited.7  The evidence of Cannon’s connection to the July 2008 home 
invasion, the evidence of his involvement with the sale of a firearm in 
August 2008, the evidence of the presence of weapons in apartments to 
which he had regular access, plus Cannon’s admission to having pleaded 
guilty to a felony in 2002, was more than sufficient evidence to for the jury 
to find him guilty of the weapon charge.  Cannon’s acquittal of two 
additional weapon charges8 does not mean he should also have been 
acquitted of the charge of possession of a firearm by a person prohibited, 
since those crimes involve significantly different elements of proof.9  We, 
therefore, conclude that Cannon’s third claim of error is without merit.     
                                                 
6 Sammons v. Doctors for Emergency Services, P.A., 913 A.2d 519, 542 (Del. 2006). 
7 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §1448(a) (The statute prohibits a person “convicted . . . of a 
felony or a crime of violence involving physical injury to another . . .” from “purchasing, 
owning, possessing, or controlling a deadly weapon or ammunition for a firearm within 
the State. . . .”) 
8 Cannon also was charged with Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a 
Felony under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §1447A and Possession of a Weapon With an 
Obliterated Serial Number under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §1459. 
9 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §§1448(a), 1447A, and 1459. 
 
8 
 
(12) Cannon’s fourth claim is that the charges stemming from the 
July 2008 and August 2008 incidents should have been severed.  Multiple 
charges may be included in the same indictment and tried together if they are 
logically or temporally “connected.”10  Moreover, this Court has held that a 
factor to consider in determining if severance is warranted is whether 
evidence pertaining to the charge sought to be severed is admissible in a trial 
of the remaining charges.11  In this case, there was a logical connection 
between the July 2008 home invasion and the events surrounding the 
discovery of the stolen property in August 2008, including the sale of the 
stolen firearm.  As a practical matter, it would have been impossible to 
separate the evidence underlying the July 2008 and August 2008 incidents.  
In the absence of any error, we conclude that Cannon’s fourth claim also is 
without merit.     
 
(13) Cannon’s fifth, and final, claim is that the State’s witnesses 
presented inconsistent testimony.  Specifically, Cannon argues that the 
inconsistent testimony of McCray, Kirby and Waters regarding his 
involvement in the sale of the firearm in August 2008 rendered it unreliable.  
It is the jury’s responsibility as the trier of fact to assess the credibility of all 
                                                 
10 Wiest v. State, 542 A.2d 1193, 1195 (Del. 1988); Super. Ct. Crim. R. 8(a). 
11 Johnson v. State, 983 A.2d 904, 922-23 (Del. 2009). 
 
9 
of the witnesses.12  This Court will not disturb a jury’s verdict as long as 
there is competent evidence to support it.13  A jury verdict will not be set 
aside merely because it is based upon conflicting evidence.14  The record in 
this case reflects that there was more than sufficient evidence to support the 
jury’s finding of guilt on the weapon charge.  Moreover, there is no evidence 
that the jury failed to properly assess the credibility of the witnesses 
presented at trial.  As such, we conclude that Cannon’s final claim likewise 
is without merit. 
 
(14) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Cannon’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issues.  We also are satisfied that Cannon’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Cannon could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  
The motion to withdraw is moot. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
12 Knight v. State, 690 A.2d 929, 932 (Del. 1996). 
13 Zutz v. State, 160 A.2d 727, 729 (Del. 1960). 
14 Id.