Opinion
No. 474, 2017
05-24-2018
BRUCE WOOD, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below-Appellee.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID 0512020169 (N) 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. We find no error in the Superior Court's conclusion that the appellant's motion was procedurally barred and that his claims of "new 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.
See Turnage v. State, 2015 WL 6746644 (Del. Nov. 4, 2015).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L . Valihura
Justice