Title: Allen v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 69, 2019
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 13, 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SHAWN ALLEN, 
 
 
Defendant Below– 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below– 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 69, 2019 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID 1805016919 (N) 
§   
§ 
§   
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 10, 2019 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: September 13, 2019 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
Upon consideration of the 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) 
On November 15, 2018, a Superior Court jury found the 
appellant, Shawn Allen, guilty of one count of possession of a firearm by a 
person prohibited (“PFBPP”), one count of possession of ammunition by a 
person prohibited (“PABPP”), and one count of receiving a stolen firearm.  
On January 18, 2019, following a presentence investigation, the Superior 
Court sentenced Allen as follows: (a) for PFBPP, to fifteen years of Level V 
 
2 
incarceration, suspended after five years for decreasing levels of supervision; 
(b) for PABPP, to one year of Level V incarceration, suspended for one year 
of Level III probation; and (c) for receiving a stolen firearm, to one year of 
Level V incarceration, suspended for one year of Level III probation.  This is 
Allen’s direct appeal. 
(2) 
Allen’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Allen’s counsel asserts that, 
based upon a conscientious review of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  Counsel informed Allen 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 Allen of his right to supplement 
counsel’s presentation.  Allen did not file a written response raising any issues 
for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken 
by Allen’s counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
 
(3) 
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 
                                                 
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). 
 
3 
determine “whether the appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided 
without an adversary presentation.”2 
 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Allen’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We are also satisfied that Allen’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Allen could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  Counsel’s motion to withdraw is moot. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
2 Penson, 488 U.S. at 82.