Cannon v. State

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KEVIN L. CANNON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 250, 2002 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County in Cr. ID No. 0008014714 Submitted: July 22, 2002 Decided: October 1, 2002 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices. ORDER This 1st day of October 2002, upon consideration of the State s motion to affirm, the Court finds it manifest on the face of the appellant s opening brief that this matter should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court s wellreasoned decision of May 1, 2002, that denied the appellant s motion for postconviction relief. The Superior Court was entirely correct in holding that the Court of Common Pleas dismissal of the Trafficking in Cocaine charge at the preliminary hearing did not preclude the State from taking the charge to the grand jury.1 A subsequent indictment on criminal charges cures any defect or irregularity, jurisdictional or procedural, in the original complaint, warrant, or preliminary hearing. 2 Moreover, after he was indicted, the appellant pleaded guilty to Trafficking in Cocaine and a violation of probation. The appellant s voluntary guilty plea waives any defects or errors allegedly occurring before the indictment.3 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/ E. Norman Veasey Chief Justice 1 See Ellegood v. State, 2001 WL 770264 (Del. Supr.); Super. Ct. Crim. R. 5.1(b). 2 Ellegood, 2001 WL 770264 (quoting Evans v. Redman, 1987 WL 37253 (Del. Supr.)) at ¶ 5. 3 Evans v. State, 2002 WL 651360 (Del. Supr.); Coverdale v. State, 2002 WL 86710 (Del. Supr.); Vasquez v. State, 2001 WL 1398441 (Del. Supr.); Oliver v. State, 2001 WL 1751246 (Del. Supr.); Downer v. State, 543 A.2d 309, 312-13 (Del. 1988). 2

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.