Woods v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BERNARD WOODS, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 153, 2017 Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID No. 0708031045 Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: April 26, 2017 Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and SEITZ, Justices. ORDER This 26th day of April 2017, it appears to the Court that: (1) In 2016, the Court directed the Clerk of the Court to refuse any filings from the appellant, Bernard Woods, relating to his 2008 convictions and sentence, unless the filing was accompanied by the required filing fee or a completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis with a sworn affidavit containing the certifications required by 10 Del. C. § 8803(e) and that motion was granted by the Court.1 On April 10, 2017, Woods filed a notice of appeal from a Superior Court order 1 Woods v. State, 2016 WL 521248, at *2 (Del. Feb. 9, 2016) (finding Woods falsely certified in his motion and affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis that he had never been found by any court to have abused the judicial process by filing frivolous litigation and that the claims raised in the matter had never been raised or disposed of before in any court). denying his motion for correction of his 2008 sentence. The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Woods to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to pay the required filing fee or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in compliance with 10 Del. C. § 8803(e) as required by this Court’s February 9, 2016 order. (2) In response to the notice to show cause, Woods argues the merits of his appeal. Woods has not paid the required filing fee or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in compliance with 10 Del. C. § 8803(e) as required by this Court’s February 9, 2016 order. Woods’ notice of appeal is therefore not approved for filing and must be dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. Chief Justice 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.
