Wood v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BRUCE WOOD, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 474, 2017 Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID 0512020169 (N) Submitted: April 20, 2018 Decided: May 24, 2018 Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. ORDER After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, the appellant’s response, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s decision adopting the Commissioner’s well-reasoned report dated June 27, 2017. Contrary to the appellant’s argument, the Superior Court properly applied the procedural bars of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 that were in effect at the time he filed his third motion for postconviction relief.1 We find no error in the Superior Court’s conclusion that the appellant’s motion was procedurally barred and that his claims of “new 1 See Turnage v. State, 2015 WL 6746644 (Del. Nov. 4, 2015). evidence” of actual innocence failed to satisfy the standard of Rule 61(d)(2)(i) because, even assuming the unauthenticated evidence was admissible at trial, it was at best impeachment evidence on a tangential issue related to the appellant’s employment history. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Karen L. Valihura 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.
