Wood v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE RAYMOND WOOD, SR., Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 224, 2015 Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County Cr. ID 1304026601 Submitted: July 27, 2015 Decided: September 10, 2015 Corrected: October 8, 2015 Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. ORDER This 8th day of October 2015, after careful consideration of appellant Raymond Wood’s opening brief and the State’s motion to affirm, we find it manifest that the judgment below denying Wood’s motion for postconviction relief as untimely under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(1) should be affirmed. Wood’s untimely motion failed to overcome the procedural hurdle of Rule 61(i)(1) because it failed to plead with particularity a claim that (i) new evidence exists that creates a strong inference that Wood is actually innocent; or (ii) a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review renders Wood’s convictions invalid. 1 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice 1 Del. Super. Ct. R. 61(d)(2), (i)(5) (effective June 4, 2014). 2
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.
