State of Delaware v. Cannon.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAW ARE E. SCOTT BRADLEY SUSSEX CO UNT Y COU RTHO USE JUDGE 1 The Circle, Suite 2 GEORGETOWN, DE 19947 December 18, 2009 Ronald L. Cannon SBI No. 00 Sussex Correctional Institution P.O. Box 500 Georgetown, DE 19947 RE: State of Delaware v. Ronald L. Cannon Def. ID No. 0212005958 Letter Opinion Date Submitted: October 23, 2009 Dear Mr. Cannon: This is my decision on your Second Motion for Postconviction Relief. You pled guilty to Trafficking in Cocaine and Possession with the Intent to Deliver Marijuana and no contest to Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited on April 8, 2003. I sentenced you to nine years at Supervision Level V. I denied your First Motion for Postconviction Relief on December 20, 2006. You filed your Second Motion for Postconviction Relief on August 4, 2009. In your Second Motion for Postconviction Relief you allege that (1) the probation officers failed to comply with the regulations requiring probation officers to assess the reliability of a confidential informant, (2) the confidential informant s tip was insufficient to establish a basis for a warrantless administrative search, (3) the anonymous tip did not provide a reasonable articulable suspicion for a search of your residence, and (4) the probation officers were required to independently determine if the anonymous tip provided a reasonable articulable suspicion. Your Second Motion for Postconviction Relief is barred by Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(1). This rule provides that a Motion for Postconviction Relief may not be filed more than one year after the judgm ent is final... 1 Prior to a change in Rule 61 that became effective on July 1, 2005, the time limit to file a Motion for Postconviction Relief was three years. The time for filing a Motion for Postconviction Relief in your case ended on April 8, 2006. Your Second Motion for Postconviction Relief was filed more than three years after the cut-off date. Therefore, it is barred by Rule 61(i)(1). The bar to relief under Rule 61(i)(1) does not apply to a claim that the court lacked jurisdiction or to a colorable claim that there was a miscarriage of justice because of a constitutional violation that undermined the fundamental legality, reliability, or fairness of the proceedings leading to the judgm ent of conviction. 2 You have not raised a colorable claim that requires consideration under this exception. Your decision to accept the State s offer and plead to the three charges is a waiver of any alleged problem s with the administrative search.3 CONCLUSION Your Second Motion for Postconviction Relief is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, 1 Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(1). 2 Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(5). 3 State v. Davis, 2002 WL 31478008, at *1(Del. Super. Oct 30, 2002). 2 E. Scott Bradley 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
