Cannon v. State, 127 A.3d 1164

Background

In 2001 a jury convicted Alonzo Cannon of possession with intent to deliver cocaine and marijuana and related offenses; he was sentenced to 18 years unsuspended. Cannon confessed after Miranda warnings and police found individually wrapped bags of drugs in a jacket in a locked bedroom where he was discovered. Field tests were positive and OCME chemist Farnam Daneshgar testified at trial that sampled bags contained cocaine and marijuana.
Cannon’s convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal; his first postconviction motion was denied and an appeal dismissed as untimely; a later federal habeas petition was denied as untimely.
In 2015 Cannon filed a second postconviction motion alleging Brady violations based on later-disclosed misconduct at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME), claiming the OCME had engaged in misconduct that could have affected his trial chemist’s work and seeking an evidentiary hearing.
The Superior Court summarily dismissed the 2015 motion, finding no evidence the OCME misconduct (which primarily involved theft/drylabbing and evidence-management problems) was ongoing in 2001 or that false chemical reporting occurred with respect to Cannon’s case.
On appeal, Cannon for the first time tied the OCME internal reports to his trial chemist but did not plead actual innocence or show the OCME had material, suppressed evidence at the time of trial; the Supreme Court affirmed, holding the motion procedurally barred under amended Rule 61 and meritless in light of overwhelming corroborating evidence of guilt.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether later-disclosed OCME misconduct (Brady) required relief or an evidentiary hearing	Cannon: OCME misconduct (including allegations against chemist Daneshgar) created a Brady claim and warranted an evidentiary hearing	State: No Brady violation because misconduct was not shown to have occurred in 2001 or to involve false chemical reporting; movant failed to plead particulars	Court: Motion properly dismissed; no showing OCME falsified tests in 2001 and Cannon didn’t plead actual innocence or link misconduct to his trial; no hearing required
Whether Cannon’s 2015 second postconviction motion complied with Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2)	Cannon: Motion raised new OCME evidence that undermines conviction	State: Motion is a successive Rule 61 filing and fails Rule 61’s particularity requirement (no allegation of actual innocence)	Court: Procedural bar under Rule 61; Cannon did not plead with particularity that new evidence creates strong inference of actual innocence
Whether issues not raised below may be considered on appeal	Cannon: Appeals court should consider OCME audit/report tying Daneshgar to drylabbing	State: Issues were not fairly presented below; appellate review not required	Court: Generally will not consider new arguments on appeal; did not reach them because interests of justice did not require departure
Whether any Brady error would be prejudicial given trial evidence	Cannon: Suppression of OCME misconduct deprived him of material impeachment	State: Overwhelming corroborating evidence (confession, witness, field tests) negates prejudice	Court: Even on merits, any Brady claim would fail because evidence of guilt was overwhelming and conviction would not be undermined

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (Miranda warnings requirement for custodial interrogation)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (prejudice inquiry for Brady requires showing suppressed evidence could undermine confidence in verdict)
Maxion v. State, 686 A.2d 148 (Del. 1996) (successive postconviction motions and Rule 61 procedural standards)
Getz v. State, 77 A.3d 271 (Del. 2013) (trial court’s discretion whether to hold evidentiary hearing under Rule 61)
Hickman v. State, 116 A.3d 1243 (Del. 2015) (OCME misconduct discovered in 2014 does not automatically create Brady violations for earlier trials)