Wood v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MICHAEL A. WOOD, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 176, 2012 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Sussex County Cr. ID Nos. 0908015904 1001007170 Submitted: June 11, 2012 Decided: August 24, 2012 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 24th day of August 2012, upon consideration of the appellant s opening brief and the appellee s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: (1) On March 2, 2010, the appellant, Michael A. Wood, pled guilty to Burglary in the Third Degree, Forgery in the Second Degree and two counts of Conspiracy in the Second Degree. The Superior Court sentenced Wood to a total of nine years at Level V suspended upon completion of Boot Camp for one year of Level III Aftercare. (2) On May 11, 2011 and again on August 16, 2011, Wood was adjudged guilty of violation of probation and resentenced. On January 5, 2012, Wood was again charged with violation of probation (VOP). New criminal charges against Wood in part formed the basis for the VOP. (3) On March 6, 2012, the Superior Court adjudged Wood guilty of VOP. On March 16, 2012, the Superior Court resentenced Wood to a total of seven years at Level V suspended and the balance discharged as unimproved after completion of the Level V Key Program and one year of a residential substance abuse treatment program. This appeal followed. (4) On appeal, Wood challenges the evidentiary basis for the March 6, 2012 conviction of VOP. Wood also questions whether the Superior Court had authority to convict him of VOP on the basis of the new criminal charges that were not yet proven. Wood s first claim is unavailing, and his second claim is without legal merit. (5) Wood s claim of insufficient evidence is unavailing in the absence of a transcript of the VOP hearing. Wood did not order transcript for this appeal. The failure to include adequate transcript of the trial court proceedings precludes appellate review of a claim of error with respect to the proceedings.1 (6) There is no merit to Wood s claim that he could not be found guilty of a VOP on the basis of new and unproven criminal charges. 1 See Hawkins v. State, 2010 WL 3341578 (Del. 2010) (citing Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987)). 2 Delaware law provides that the Superior Court has the authority to revoke probation on the basis that a probationer has been charged with new criminal conduct.2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Myron T. Steele Chief Justice 2 See Hawkins v. State, 2010 WL 3341578 (Del. Supr.) (citing Cruz v. State, 990 A.2d 409 (Del. 2010)); Waters v. State, 2012 WL 1655706 (Del. Supr.) (citing Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 717 (Del. 2006)). 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
