IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ANTONIO BARLOW,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 556, 2018 

§ 

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. 1706003785 (S)

§

§

§

§

Submitted: March 4, 2019

Decided: March 22, 2019

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and SEITZ, Justices.

O R D E R

After consideration of 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) In June 2017, the appellant, Antonio Barlow, was indicted for three 

counts of Unlawful Sexual Contact in the Second Degree, three counts of Rape in 

the Second Degree, and Sexual Solicitation of a Child. In March 2018, Barlow 

pleaded guilty to Endangering the Welfare of a Child, as a lesser-included offense 

of Unlawful Sexual Contact in the Second Degree, and pleaded no contest to Rape 

in the Fourth Degree, as a lesser-included offense of Rape in the Second Degree. In 

exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges. 
2

(2) Barlow agreed that he qualified to be sentenced as a habitual offender 

under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a) for Endangering the Welfare of a Child and agreed to 

immediate sentencing. On March 7, 2018, the Superior Court sentenced Barlow as 

follows: for Rape in the Fourth Degree, 15 years at Level V incarceration, suspended 

after successful completion of the transitions sex offender program for three years 

of Level III probation; for Endangering the Welfare of a Child, 203 days at Level V 

incarceration. Barlow’s sentence was consistent with the sentencing 

recommendation made in the plea agreement.

(3) On August 30, 2018, Barlow filed a motion for modification of 

sentence. The Superior Court denied the motion. This appeal followed.

(4) Barlow’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw under 

Supreme Court Rule 26(c). Barlow’s counsel asserts that, based upon a complete 

and careful review of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. In her 

statement filed under Rule 26(c), counsel indicates that she informed Barlow of the 

provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw 

and the accompanying brief. Counsel also informed Barlow of his right to submit 

points he wanted this Court to consider on appeal. Barlow has not submitted any 

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

and argues that the Superior Court’s judgment should be affirmed.
3

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

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

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

Court must also conduct its own review of the record and determine “whether the 

appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary 

presentation.”2

(6) The Court has reviewed the record carefully and concluded that 

Barlow’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 

issue. We also are satisfied that counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the 

record and the law and properly determined that Barlow 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, 488 U.S. at 81.