J-S51005-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

THEOPHILUS L. BALDWIN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1811 MDA 2019

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 9, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-14-CR-0000302-2014

BEFORE: MURRAY, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 23, 2021

Theophilus L. Baldwin (Appellant) appeals pro se1from the order 

dismissing his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

The PCRA court summarized the relevant background as follows:

The procedural history of this case is somewhat convoluted. . . . 

[Appellant] was charged with several violations of the controlled 

substance, drug, device and cosmetic act, 35 P.S. § 780-101, et 

seq. (Controlled Substances Act). Several of the charges against 

[Appellant] were severed and two were nol prossed. [Appellant] 

was prosecuted for the remaining severed charges under the 

criminal information docketed at [No. 686-2015], wherein 

[Appellant] entered a plea of guilty. Under the instant docket,

[i.e., CP-14-CR-0000302-2014 (No. 302-2014)), Appellant] was 

tried by a jury of his peers and found guilty of four violations of 

the Controlled Substances Act on November 4, 2014. [Appellant] 

____________________________________________

1 Appellant has also filed a counseled appeal at a separate docket, CP-14-CR686-2015 (No. 686-2015), which is before this panel at No. 1795 MDA 2019, 

and in which Appellant challenges the dismissal of a different PCRA petition. 
J-S51005-20

- 2 -

was subsequently sentenced on December 18, 2014. 

[Appellant’s] sentence was amended on February 12, 2015, 

following [Appellant’s] post-sentence motion. [Appellant] filed a 

notice of appeal to the Superior Court and [the trial] court’s 

judgment of sentence was affirmed. See Commonwealth v. 

Baldwin, 144 A.3d 185 (Pa. Super. 2016) (unpublished 

memorandum). [Appellant did not seek allowance of appeal with 

the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.]

[Appellant] filed his first pro se PCRA petition on October 

11, 2016. . . . [Appellant] was assigned [] PCRA counsel but then 

he hired private counsel to argue his PCRA claims under the 

current docket. [Appellant’s] private counsel was granted leave 

to withdraw as counsel for personal reasons and [Appellant] was 

assigned new PCRA counsel, Attorney Justin P. Miller [(Attorney 

Miller)]. On October 9, 2018, [Appellant] filed a second pro se

PCRA petition.[2] On January 28, 2019, [the PCRA] court directed 

[Attorney Miller] to file an amended PCRA petition. On July 29, 

2019, [Attorney Miller] filed a motion for leave to withdraw 

appearance and attached a . . . “No Merit” brief[,3 pursuant to 

Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and 

Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en 

banc)]. [The PCRA] court filed a notice of intention to dismiss the 

PCRA petition on August 21, 2019 [(907 notice), and the court

permitted Attorney Miller to withdraw as counsel]. [Appellant] 

filed his response to the [907] notice . . . on September 18, 2019. 

____________________________________________

2 On October 29, 2018, Appellant filed a pro se motion asking the PCRA court 

to consolidate No. 302-2014 and No. 686-2015. Appellant asserted, inter alia, 

that the “factual nexus and legal premise for both cases are closely tied, and 

facts in support of each case relate to the other.” The PCRA court denied the 

motion on November 13, 2018.

3 Attorney Miller opined, inter alia, that Appellant wanted to raise claims that 

were not cognizable under the PCRA. Attorney Miller further stated that 

Appellant’s claim of improper severance of No. 302-2014 and No. 686-2015

was previously rejected by the Superior Court on direct appeal, and there was 

no merit to Appellant’s claim that tampering with evidence by a police officer 

impacted Appellant’s case.
J-S51005-20

- 3 -

PCRA Court Opinion, 1/3/20, at 1-2 (unnumbered) (footnotes added, citations 

modified, some capitalization omitted).

By order entered October 9, 2019, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s

petition without a hearing. On November 4, 2019, Appellant filed a pro se

notice of appeal (Notice).

4

 On November 22, 2019, the PCRA court entered 

an order, which it served upon Appellant, directing him to file a Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal “within twentyone (21) days of the filing of this Order.” Concise Statement Order, 

11/22/19.

5

 The order advised Appellant that “any issue not properly included 

in the timely filed Statement shall be deemed waived by the appellate court.” 

Id.

As stated above, Appellant filed a counseled and timely Rule 1925(b) 

statement at No. 686-2015. In this case, however, Appellant filed a pro se

Rule 1925(b) statement on December 16, 2019, which was late by three days.

On January 3, 2020, the PCRA court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion briefly 

addressing Appellant’s claims.

____________________________________________

4 The Notice mistakenly listed the date of the order on appeal as October 2, 

2019. Appellant’s brief on appeal, however, includes the correct order, 

entered October 9, 2019. Also, although the Notice’s caption lists No. 302-

2014, Appellant wrote on the caption, “Changed to CP-14-CR-686-2015.”

5 One week prior to the concise statement order, at No. 686-2015, Appellant 

filed a counseled Rule 1925(b) statement, pursuant to a separate order 

entered on October 29, 2019. The PCRA court in No. 686-2015 subsequently 

issued an opinion rejecting the merits of Appellant’s claims. 
J-S51005-20

- 4 -

Appellant has failed to preserve his issues for review. Our well-settled

jurisprudence sets forth a “clear” and “bright-line” rule that mandates

appellants to timely “file and serve a Rule 1925(b) statement, when so 

ordered; any issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed 

waived[.]” Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011) (relying on

Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998)); see also

Commonwealth v. Butler, 812 A.2d 631, 633-34 (Pa. 2002). Further, the

Superior Court does “not have the discretion to countenance deviations from

the Rule’s requirements[.]” Hill, 16 A.3d at 494; see also id. (holding “the

Rule’s provisions are not subject to ad hoc exceptions or selective

enforcement”). The Supreme Court in Hill cited with approval the Court’s

prior holding in Commonwealth v. Castillo, 858 A.2d 1156 (Pa. 2004)

(reaffirming that failure to file a timely 1925(b) statement, regardless of the 

length of the delay, results in automatic waiver). Hill, 16 A.3d at 492. 

Castillo “disapproved of, inter alia, Commonwealth v. Alsop, 799 A.2d 129 

(Pa. Super. 2002), which had permitted merits review of issues raised in 

untimely Rule 1925(b) statement because trial court discussed issues in Rule 

1925(a) opinion.” Hill, 16 A.3d at 492 (citing Castillo); see also Greater

Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 225 

(Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (same). 

Here, the court’s order directed Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b)

statement within 21 days of November 22, 2019. Appellant filed the 
J-S51005-20

- 5 -

statement 3 days late.6 Consistent with the foregoing legal authority, we “do 

not have discretion to countenance deviations from the Rule’s requirements,” 

and Appellant’s issues are waived. See Castillo, supra; Hill, supra.

7

Even if not waived, Appellant’s claims do not merit relief. Appellate

courts review a PCRA court’s dismissal of a PCRA petition for an abuse of 

discretion. Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595, 603 (Pa. 2013). Here, 

the PCRA court addressed Appellant’s contention that he:

was denied a fair and meaningful PCRA process because his PCRA 

petition was denied without a hearing, and [Attorney Miller]

rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by not pursuing 

[Appellant’s] claims. Upon receipt of Attorney Miller’s 

Turner/Finley “No Merit” brief, the court reviewed it, as well as 

[Appellant’s] numerous letters addressed to this court, and 

[Appellant’s] pro se PCRA petition. In paragraph 5(ii) of his PCRA

petition, [Appellant] alleges he pled guilty to the charges against 

him under the criminal information docketed at No. 686-2015 with

insufficient information, because he was unaware that former 

State College Police Department Sergeant Thomas E. Dann pled 

guilty to tampering with evidence in [Appellant’s] case. In 

paragraph 6 of the PCRA petition, [Appellant] again contests his 

negotiated guilty plea [at No. 686-2015,] and argues the [trial] 

____________________________________________

6 Appellant did not request, nor did the PCRA court grant, an extension of time 

to file the underlying 1925(b) statement. 

7 We recognize that when “a Rule 1925(b) statement is filed late by a 

represented criminal defendant, such constitutes per se ineffectiveness so 

that the proper remedy is to remand for the filing of such a statement nunc

pro tunc.” Commonwealth v. Grohowski, 980 A.2d 113, 114 (Pa. Super.

2009) (emphasis added, citation omitted); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3). 

However, in this appeal, Appellant is pro se. See Commonwealth v. 

Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739, 766 (Pa. 2014) (“Although the courts may liberally 

construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special 

benefit upon a litigant, and a court cannot be expected to become a litigant’s 

counsel[.]”). We further note that Appellant is represented by counsel in his

appeal from the PCRA order at No. 686-2014.
J-S51005-20

- 6 -

court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to amend the 

Information after trial.

Neither issue [Appellant] raises reflects the criminal 

proceedings that occurred under the current docket. The 

issue regarding the amendment of the criminal information was 

resolved by the Superior Court, and that argument was renewed 

by [Appellant’s] PCRA counsel under No. 686-2015. See 

Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 181 A.3d 1254 (Pa. Super. 2017)

(unpublished memorandum) [(stating, inter alia, that “[w]here 

the court’s assignment of a new docket number on the severed 

charges was merely an administrative act to clarify the docket with 

regard to the remaining, severed charges, we find no error,” and

holding that jurisdiction was not lacking. Id. at *6).] The issues 

presented in [Appellant’s] response to this court’s [907] notice . . 

. also alleged [Attorney Miller] was ineffective by not pursuing 

[Appellant’s] claims. [Appellant] also raised a jurisdictional issue,

stating the court did not have jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea 

while the judgment of sentence in the instant docket was on 

appeal in the Superior Court. Again, this issue has been argued 

under No. 686-2015, and it was not properly before this court 

under the current docket. [Appellant] has PCRA representation 

under No. 686-2015, and the [PCRA] court’s decision to dismiss

[Appellant’s] PCRA petition without a hearing under that docket is 

currently on appeal to the Superior Court. 

PCRA Court Opinion, 1/3/20, at 4-5 (unnumbered) (emphasis added, citations 

modified, some capitalization omitted).

Our review confirms the accuracy of the PCRA court’s assessment. 

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Appellant’s pro se PCRA petition.

Order affirmed; Application denied.8

____________________________________________

8 On November 24, 2020, Appellant filed a pro se application for relief with 

this Court (Application). Appellant essentially seeks leave to refile appendices 

to his appellate brief, including a copy of his 1925(b) statement and other 

documents. We have reviewed the documents attached to the Application, 

which also appear of record. Therefore, we deny the Application as moot. 
J-S51005-20

- 7 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 02/23/2021