Title: Wood v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 224, 2015
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 8, 2015

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