Com. v. Baldwin, T.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: February 22, 2023
• Docket: 233 MDA 2022
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A27027-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : THEOPHILUS L. BALDWIN : : Appellant : No. 233 MDA 2022

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 10, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-14-CR-0000302-2014

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: FEBRUARY 22, 2023

Theophilus L. Baldwin appeals from the denial of his Post-Conviction

Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition for untimeliness. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.

We affirm.

Following a jury trial, Baldwin was found guilty of multiple crimes under

the Controlled Substances Act. The court sentenced him to an aggregate term

of 10 to 20 years’ imprisonment. This Court affirmed and Baldwin sought no

further appeal. See Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 2016 WL 800677, at *1

(Pa.Super. filed March 1, 2016) (unpublished memorandum).

Baldwin filed the instant pro se PCRA petition, his second, on October

25, 2021. He argued a violation of his constitutional rights, ineffective

assistance of counsel, and a proceeding without jurisdiction. He acknowledged

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A27027-22

that his petition was untimely and claimed the governmental interference and

the newly recognized constitutional right time-bar exceptions. He maintained

that the Attorney General had fabricated evidence to the Grand Jury and that

prior PCRA counsel had abandoned him. In support of his contention of

fabricated evidence, Baldwin attached a pretrial motion and a petition for writ

of habeas corpus for two unrelated defendants. He noted that in those cases,

counsel alleged that the Attorney General’s office presented false evidence.

Regarding his case, he highlighted that the criminal complaint stated that a

witness sold heroin with Baldwin in June 2012, but the same witness testified

that he did not meet Baldwin until September 2012. See Brief Summary

Attachment to Petitioner’s October 2021 at 1 (unpaginated). 1 He also noted

that “the prosecution admitted during trial that [Baldwin] and Wilson [his co-

defendant] were not an accomplice to one another.” Id. at 2 (unpaginated).

The PCRA court issued notice of its intention to dismiss the petition. In

the notice, it concluded that Baldwin had failed to satisfy any time-bar

exception. See Notice, filed 11/4/21, at ¶ 3. It also stated that his claims were

meritless because they were all previously litigated. See id. Baldwin filed a

response to the notice that did not address the timeliness issue, and the court

dismissed his petition. This timely appeal followed.

Baldwin raises the following issues, which we reprint verbatim (omitting

Baldwin’s suggested answers):

1 This document is attached to Exhibit C of Baldwin’s PCRA petition.

-2- J-A27027-22

1. Did the PCRA Court [“Ruest”] err by allowing PCRA Counsel [“Justin P. Miller, Esq.”] to withdraw based upon Counsel’s No-Merit Letter, which represent that Appellant-Defendant provided Counsel with Information/Documentation demonstrating how the OAG conspired to tie [“Baldwin”] into a larger conspiracy where numerous witnesses perjured themselves to do so, and that the OAG actually committed such act, resulting in PCRA Counsel being Ineffective[?]

2. Did the Commonwealth commit prosecution misconduct; specifically where several witnesses testified falsely during trial and the conviction was obtained using false evidence that was provided to both, the petit and Grand Jury[?]

Baldwin’s Br. at 4 (suggested answers omitted) (some brackets in original).

We review the grant or denial of PCRA relief by determining “whether

the PCRA court's ruling is supported by the record and free of legal error.”

Commonwealth v. Presley, 193 A.3d 436, 442 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citation

omitted).

The court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a PCRA petition unless the

petitioner files the petition within the PCRA’s time limits. See

Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120, 1124 (Pa. 2005). The PCRA’s

time limits require a petitioner to file any petition seeking PCRA relief within

one year after the judgment of sentence becomes final unless a statutory

exception to the one-year rule applies. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment

of sentence becomes final “at the conclusion of direct review, including

discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the United States and the

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time for seeking

review.” Id. at § 9545(b)(3).

-3- J-A27027-22

The timeliness exceptions are:

(i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States;

(ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or

(iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and has been held by that court to apply retroactively.

Id. at. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). The petitioner must raise any claim to one of the

exceptions within one year of the date that the claim could have been

presented. Id. at § 9545(b)(2).

Here, Baldwin’s judgment of sentence became final on March 31, 2016.

See Pa.R.A.P. 1113 (providing 30 days from entry of Superior Court order to

file petition for allowance of appeal to the Supreme Court). The one-year

deadline therefore expired on March 31, 2017. Baldwin did not file the instant

petition until October 25, 2021. Thus, the instant petition, which he filed more

than five and a half years after his judgment of sentence became final, was

patently untimely. To overcome the untimeliness, Baldwin attempted to raise

the governmental interference and newly recognized constitutional right

exceptions. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i), (iii). The PCRA court concluded

that neither exception applied here.

-4- J-A27027-22

On appeal, Baldwin does not dispute that conclusion. Instead, his issues

on appeal contend that counsel on his first PCRA petition was ineffective for

filing a no-merit letter and that the Commonwealth committed prosecutorial

misconduct at trial. He therefore has given us no basis on which to grant him

relief. Moreover, we perceive no error in the PCRA court’s ruling.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 2/22/2023

-5-