Case Title: Wood v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 176, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2012-08-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MICHAEL A. WOOD,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 176, 2012 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for Sussex County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID Nos. 0908015904  
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
1001007170  
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Submitted:  June 11, 2012 
Decided:  August 24, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
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, 
2 
 
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)). 
3 
 
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)).