IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

KENNETH BARRON, §

§ No. 351, 2017

Defendant Below, §

Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

v. §

§ Cr. ID No. 1601003371 (N)

STATE OF DELAWARE, §

§

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: November 30, 2017

 Decided: February 9, 2018

Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.

O R D E R

This 9th day of February 2018, having considered the no-merit brief and 

motion to withdraw filed by the appellant’s counsel under Supreme Court Rule 

26(c), the State’s response, and the Superior Court record, it appears to the Court 

that:

(1) The appellant, Kenneth Barron, was indicted in February 2016 on 

twenty-eight counts of Unlawful Sexual Contact First Degree and two counts each 

of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child, Sexual Abuse of a Child by a Person in a 

Position of Trust, and Dangerous Crime Against a Child. On June 19, 2017, Barron 

pleaded no contest to two counts of Unlawful Sexual Contact Second Degree as 

lesser included offenses of two counts of Unlawful Sexual Contact First Degree. In 
2

exchange for Barron’s plea, the State agreed to enter a nolle prosequi on the other 

counts in the indictment. The Superior Court accepted Barron’s plea and ordered a 

presentence investigation.

(2) On August 11, 2017, the Superior Court sentenced Barron to a total of 

six years of Level V incarceration suspended after five years for six months of Level 

IV supervision followed by four years of Level III probation. This is Barron’s direct 

appeal.

(3) On appeal, Barron’s appellate counsel has filed a no-merit brief and a 

motion to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c). Barron’s counsel asserts that, 

based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 

appealable issues. 

(4) Appellate counsel informed Barron of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and 

provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief 

and appendix in draft form. Appellate counsel also informed Barron of his right to 

identify any points he wanted this Court to consider on appeal. Barron has not raised 

any issues for the Court’s consideration. The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) 

brief and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.

(5) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief 

under Rule 26(c), the Court must be satisfied that the appellant’s counsel has made 
3

a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims.1 Also, 

the Court must conduct its own review of the record to determine whether the appeal 

is so totally devoid of at least arguably appealable issues that it can be decided 

without an adversary presentation.2

(6) Having conducted “a full examination of all the proceedings” and 

having found “no nonfrivolous issue for appeal,”3the Court concludes that Barron’s 

appeal “is wholly without merit.”4 The Court is satisfied that Barron’s appellate 

counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and properly 

determined that Barron could not raise a meritorious claim on appeal.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr. 

Justice

 

1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 

442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

2 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. at 81–82.

3

Id. at 80.

4 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 26(c).