Case Title: Wood v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 474, 2017

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2018-05-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BRUCE WOOD, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  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. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
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). 
 
2 
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