Com. v. Baldwin, T. ( 2023 )

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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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 filed March 1, 2016) (unpublished memorandum).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-