Opinion ID: 3153493
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: In 2001, a Superior Court jury convicted Alonzo Cannon of offenses related to possession of cocaine and marijuana. At trial, the State introduced evidence that after being read his Miranda rights, Cannon confessed to police that the drugs were his and also where he obtained them. The trial judge sentenced Cannon to eighteen years unsuspended jail time followed by decreasing levels of supervision. This Court affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct appeal. The Superior Court denied Cannon’s first motion for postconviction relief, and this Court dismissed his appeal from the first motion as untimely filed. On January 8, 2015, with the assistance of counsel, Cannon filed a second motion for postconviction relief, claiming that the State’s failure to disclose misconduct in the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (“OCME”) violated the State’s obligation under Brady v. Maryland,1 and that an evidentiary hearing was required to explore the Brady issue further. The motion was a lengthy form motion filed in a number of cases raising misconduct at the OCME. 2 The Superior Court summarily dismissed the motion, and found there was no evidence to support Cannon’s contention that the misconduct at the OCME was ongoing during his 1 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 2 For instance, the motion contained an argument section addressing guilty pleas, which has no relevance here because Cannon went to trial. App. to Opening Br. at 111-18 (Second Mot. for Postconviction Relief). 2 trial in 2001, or that the misconduct involved false chemical analysis reporting as opposed to theft.3 On appeal, Cannon has for the first time tailored his arguments to his case, and claims that the Superior Court erred because he raises a substantial issue about whether the OCME misconduct was ongoing at the time of his trial. The State has responded that Cannon’s motion is barred by amended Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, and in any event, Cannon admitted to the crimes, and the drugs field tested positive for illegal substances, so the motion should be denied. After careful review of the record, we find that the issues on appeal were not fairly raised before the Superior Court, and Rule 61 bars Cannon’s claims because he does not allege actual innocence. Even if we reached the merits of his claims, they would be barred due to the overwhelming evidence of guilt presented at trial. Therefore we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.