State v. Cannon

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: October 31, 2025
• Docket: 1706001541
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE : : v. : I.D. No.: 1706001541 : JAMARR CANNON, : : Defendant. :

ORDER

Submitted: July 18, 2025 Decided: October 31, 2025

On this 31st day of October 2025, after considering Defendant Jamarr

Cannon’s Motion for Postconviction Relief (“PCR Motion”), Pretrial Counsel’s

Response, Appellate Counsel’s Affidavit, the State’s Response, the Commissioner’s

Report and Recommendation, and the record in this case, IT APPEARS THAT:

1. On June 3, 2017, Mr. Cannon was arrested and charged with Possession of

Cocaine in a Tier 5 Quantity; Drug Dealing Cocaine in a Tier 4 Quantity; Resisting

Arrest with Force or Violence (“Resisting Arrest”); Possession of Drug

Paraphernalia; Failure to Have an Insurance Card; and Operating a Vehicle with

Illegal Window Tint.1

1 D.I. 1 (Jun. 20, 2017).

1 2. On October 2, 2017, Mr. Cannon, through his counsel, Stephanie Blaisdell,

Esquire (“Pretrial Counsel”), filed a Motion to Suppress, which the Court denied

after a hearing on November 2, 2017.2

3. On December 5, 2017, before trial was set to commence, Mr. Cannon

requested to proceed pro se.3 The Court conducted an extensive colloquy with Mr.

Cannon, and granted Mr. Cannon’s application.4 Pretrial Counsel was appointed as

standby counsel.5

4. On December 19, 2017, Mr. Cannon filed a Motion for New Counsel and

a Motion for a Franks Hearing, which were both denied that same day.6 On January

10, 2018, Mr. Cannon filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Franks Hearing, which

was denied on January 12, 2018.7

2 D.I. 8 (Oct. 2, 2017); see D.I. 12 (Nov. 2, 2017). Mr. Cannon, acting pro se, filed a Motion for Reargument/Reconsideration of Motion to Suppress, which the Court denied on February 15, 2018. See also D.I. 40 (Feb. 8, 2018). 3 D.I. 14 (Dec. 5, 2017). 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 D.I. 28 (Dec. 19, 2017); see D.I. 19 (Dec. 19, 2017); see also D.I. 20 (Dec. 19, 2017). 7 D.I. 27 (Jan. 10, 2018); see D.I. 29 (Jan. 12, 2018).

2 5. Mr. Cannon appeared pro se at his bench trial, which was held on January

29, 2018.8 The Court reserved its verdict until the next day.9 On January 30, 2018,

Mr. Cannon was found guilty of one count of Possession of Cocaine in a Tier 5

Quantity under 16 Del. C. § 4752(3); one count of Drug Dealing Cocaine in a Tier 4

Quantity under 16 Del. C. § 4752(1); one count of Resisting Arrest under 11 Del. C.

§ 1257; one count of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia under 16 Del. C. § 4771(a);

and one count of Failure to Have Insurance Card under 21 Del. C. § 2118.10 On that

same date, Mr. Cannon was found not guilty of the singular count of Operating a

Vehicle with Illegal Window Tint.11 The Court ordered a pre-sentence investigation.

6. On February 8, 2018, Mr. Cannon, acting pro se, filed a Motion for

Reargument/Reconsideration of [the] Motion to Suppress, which the Court denied

on February 15, 2018.12

7. The State filed a motion to declare Mr. Cannon a habitual offender on

March 7, 2018.13 On April 11, 2018, at the time of sentencing and after review of

8 D.I. 34 (Jan. 29, 2018). 9 Id. 10 D.I. 36 (Jan. 30, 2018); see Cannon v. State, 2018 WL 6575432, at *1 (Del. Dec. 12, 2018). 11 D.I. 36 (Jan. 30, 2018). 12 D.I. 40 (Feb. 8, 2018); see D.I. 44 (Feb. 15, 2018). 13 D.I. 48 (Mar. 7, 2018). 3 the presentence investigation, the Court granted the State’s motion. 14 Mr. Cannon

was sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate of fifty years at Level V,

suspended after nineteen years at Level V for decreasing levels of probation. 15 The

Court also imposed fines.16

8. On May 4, 2018, Mr. Cannon timely filed a Notice of Appeal of his

conviction to the Delaware Supreme Court.17 Edward C. Gill, Esquire (“Appellate

Counsel”) was appointed as appellate counsel for Mr. Cannon.18 Mr. Cannon’s “sole

claim on appeal [was] that the Superior Court erred in denying his motion to suppress

all evidence derived from a traffic stop from a suspected window tint violation.”19

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Mr. Cannon’s conviction on December 12,

2018, and filed its mandate on December 31, 2018.20

14 D.I. 54-57 (Apr. 11, 2018). 15 D.I. 56 (Apr. 11, 2018); see A319-23. 16 Id. 17 D.I. 58 (May 4, 2018). While the Court’s docket indicated Mr. Cannon filed his appeal pro se, the Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation indicated his appeal was filed through Appellate Counsel. See Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), at 2 (July 2, 2025). 18 See App. Couns.’s Aff. Regarding Def.’s Mot. for Postconviction Relief at 1 (Feb. 19, 2025); see also State’s Resp. to Def.’s Amended Mot. for Postconviction Relief at 4 (Mar. 28, 2025). 19 Cannon v. State, 2018 WL 6575432, at *1. 20 D.I. 68 (Dec. 31, 2018).

4 9. On August 12, 2020, Mr. Cannon, acting pro se, filed a Motion for

Correction of Sentence, which this Court denied as untimely on August 26, 2020.21

Mr. Cannon appealed this Court’s denial of that motion to the Delaware Supreme

Court on September 21, 2020.22 On January 14, 2021, Mr. Cannon filed his Opening

Brief, contending he was sentenced illegally for the Resisting Arrest charge under

11 Del. C. § 4214(d) because he did not meet the criteria under that subsection to be

declared a habitual offender.23 On January 27, 2021, the State filed a Motion to

Remand to Superior Court, advising that Mr. Cannon’s contentions were correct as

to the Resisting Arrest charge under § 4214(d), but that he did meet the requirements

under § 4214(b).24 Accordingly, the Delaware Supreme Court granted Mr. Cannon’s

appeal on March 5, 2021. 25 On April 7, 2021, the Delaware Supreme Court issued

its mandate vacating the judgment and remanding to this Court for resentencing

under the correct statute.26 On May 6, 2021, Mr. Cannon was resentenced as habitual

by this Court under 11 Del. C. § 4214(b).27

21 D.I. 71 (Aug. 12, 2020); see D.I. 72 (Aug. 26, 2020). 22 A396. 23 A399; see A412. 24 A413. 25 Cannon v. State, 2021 WL 855878 (Del. Mar. 5, 2021); see D.I. 78 (Apr. 7, 2021). 26 Id. 27 D.I. 82 (May 6, 2021). 5 10. On October 8, 2021, Mr. Cannon again appealed to the Delaware Supreme

Court regarding his resentencing, and filed his Opening Brief on January 3, 2022.28

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed his resentencing on March 4, 2022.29

11. On June 22, 2022, Mr. Cannon filed a PCR Motion based on three

grounds: (1) due process violations at the pretrial stage; (2) ineffective assistance of

Pretrial Counsel at the suppression hearing; and (3) ineffective assistance of

Appellate Counsel for failure to appeal false testimony at trial, due process

violations, the Resisting Arrest conviction, and the ineffective assistance of Pretrial

Counsel.30

12. Mr. Cannon filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel on July 7, 2022,

which the Court granted on September 15, 2022.31 Benjamin E. Gifford, IV, Esquire

(“Appointed Counsel”) was appointed by the Office of Conflicts Counsel as

postconviction counsel for Mr. Cannon.32

13. While represented by Appointed Counsel, on February 27, 2023, Mr.

Cannon, acting pro se, filed an Amended PCR Motion asserting similar grounds as

28 D.I. 95 (Oct. 8, 2021); see A519. 29 Cannon v. State, 2022 WL 7375526 (Mar. 4, 2022); see D.I. 100-01 (Mar. 30, 2022). 30 D.I. 102 (June 22, 2022); see Def.’s Mot. for Postconviction Relief, at 3 (June 22, 2022). 31 D.I. 103 (July 7, 2022); see D.I. 105 (Sept. 15, 2022). 32 D.I. 105 (Sept. 15, 2022).

6 his original PCR Motion: (1) ineffective assistance of Appellate Counsel for failure

to appeal pretrial due process violations; (2) ineffective assistance of Pretrial

Counsel for failure to address suppression issues properly; and (3) ineffective

assistance of Appellate Counsel for failure to appeal the Court’s denial of his

Motions for a Franks Hearing, for New Counsel, and to Dismiss, and for failure to

appeal the Resisting Arrest conviction.33 The matter was referred to a Commissioner

by Order of Reference on March 8, 2023.34

14. On March 26, 2024, Appointed Counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw as

Counsel, along with a memorandum in support of his motion.35 Appointed Counsel

based his request to withdraw on a thorough and conscientious review of the facts,

the record, and the law in the case, having concluded that Mr. Cannon’s PCR Motion

was wholly without merit and that no meritorious grounds for relief existed. The

Court granted Appointed Counsel’s Motion, and issued a scheduling order on

October 21, 2024.36

33 D.I. 120 (Feb. 27, 2023); see Def.’s Amended Mot. for Postconviction Relief, at 3 (Feb. 27, 2023). 34 D.I. 121 (Mar. 8, 2023). 35 D.I. 142 (Mar. 25, 2024). 36 D.I. 147 and 148 (Oct. 21, 2024).

7 15. As Mr. Cannon directed his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel

toward Pretrial and Appellate Counsel, the Commissioner requested responses from

both attorneys.37 Pretrial Counsel filed a letter response on January 2, 2025.38

Appellate Counsel filed an Affidavit on February 20, 2025.39 Similarly, the State

filed its response on March 28, 2025.40 Mr. Cannon did not file any reply to these

submissions.

16. The Commissioner issued the Report and Recommendation (“Report”)

on July 2, 2025.41 The Report concluded Mr. Cannon’s PCR Motion was time barred

under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i).42 The Report found as meritless Mr.

Cannon’s contention that there was any violation of his due process rights.43 The

Report further concluded that Mr. Cannon failed to satisfy either prong of the

Strickland test to prove his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, noting he

37 D.I. 148 (Oct. 21, 2024). 38 D.I. 151 (Jan. 2, 2025). Pretrial Counsel indicated Mr. Cannon appeared pro se while she acted as standby counsel. See Pretrial Couns.’s Response Letter at 1 (Jan. 2, 2025). 39 D.I. 153 (Feb. 20, 2025). Appellate Counsel denied all of Mr. Cannon’s claims, but conceded he should have appealed Mr. Cannon’s Resisting Arrest conviction. See App. Couns.’s Aff. Regarding Def.’s Mot. for Postconviction Relief at 1-2. 40 D.I. 155 (Mar. 28, 2025). 41 D.I. 159 (July 2, 2025). 42 Report at 7 and 16. 43 Report at 11-12.

8 failed to specify any new evidence, law, or evidentiary rule applicable to his case

that deemed his convictions invalid.44 The Commissioner further noted Mr. Cannon

did not state sufficiently, and with the requisite particularity, the nature of the

prejudice he suffered as a result of the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.45

Accordingly, the Commissioner recommended this Court deny Mr. Cannon’s PCR

Motion.46

17. Superior Court Criminal Rule 62(b) provides that any party “appealing

the findings of fact and recommendations of a Commissioner under subparagraph

(5) who fails to comply with the provisions of this rule may be subject to dismissal

of said motion for reconsideration or appeal.”47 Any objections to the

Commissioner’s proposed findings of fact and recommendations must be filed

within ten days of the issuance of the Commissioner’s Report.48 To date, Mr. Cannon

has not filed any objections to the Commissioner’s Report, nor has he asked this

Court to reconsider any of the Report’s findings.

44 Report at 8-11. 45 Report at 12. 46 Report at 16. 47 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 62(b). 48 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 62(a)(5)(ii). 9 18. Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i) requires any Motion for

Postconviction Relief be filed within one year of the judgment of conviction

becoming final. Mr. Cannon’s conviction became final when the Delaware Supreme

Court issued its mandate on his appeal on December 31, 2018. This Court did not

receive Mr. Cannon’s PCR Motion until June 22, 2022. This Court agrees with, and

adopts, the Report’s finding that Mr. Cannon’s PCR Motion is procedurally barred

by the requirements of Rule 61.

NOW, THEREFORE, after a de novo review of the record in this action,

and consideration of the parties’ arguments and the Report:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report is ADOPTED by this Court.

Mr. Cannon failed to file his Motion within one year of final judgment of his

conviction, as required by Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. Thus, his PCR Motion

is procedurally barred. Mr. Cannon failed to file any objections to the Report within

the ten-day window outlined by Superior Court Criminal Rule 62. As such, Mr.

Cannon waives any objections to the Report. Mr. Cannon’s PCR Motion must be

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.