J-S49036-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

PETER BAYNES 

Appellant No. 1908 WDA 2016

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 22, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0006305-2011

BEFORE: DUBOW, SOLANO, and FITZGERALD,*JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED AUGUST 14, 2017

Appellant, Peter Baynes, appeals from the order entered in the 

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas denying his first petition filed 

pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act1(“PCRA”). Appellant contends 

trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a defense witness at trial. We 

affirm. 

This Court previously summarized the relevant facts and procedural 

history of this case as follows:

Anna Gomez and [Appellant] dated for 

approximately four years and resided together in the

first floor apartment at 317 Natchez Street in the 

Mount Washington area of the City of Pittsburgh, 

Allegheny County. In the late evening hours of 

Friday, April 22, 2011, [Appellant] approached 

 

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 42 Pa.C.S §§ 9541-9546. 
J-S49036-17

- 2 -

Gomez and accused her of having affairs with their 

landlord, his best friend, and several other men. 

When Gomez denied these allegations [Appellant] 

grabbed her, threw her onto the bed, and ripped off 

her clothes. [Appellant] climbed on top of her as he 

said, “We’re going to get to the bottom of this.” 

[Appellant] restrained Gomez by kneeling on her 

shoulders, and punched her repeatedly in the face. 

Gomez pleaded for [Appellant] to stop.

[Appellant] ran into another room to retrieve an 

aluminum baseball bat (“bat”). Upon returning he 

stood over her on the bed, holding the bat extended 

above his head with both arms. [Appellant] said, 

“Now you are going to tell me the truth. Don’t 

move. We are going to get to the bottom of this.” 

When he started to ask her questions about the 

alleged affairs, she was able to get to the foot of the 

bed and attempted to call 911. [Appellant] hit her 

twice in the head with the bat: once on top of her 

head and once across her face. This knocked her 

onto the floor and caused blood to run from her 

head.

With Gomez lying on the ground on her back, 

[Appellant] stood over her with the bat and 

demanded that she tell him the truth. Gomez rolled 

over in an attempt to stand up and run away. 

[Appellant] stopped her by hitting her with the bat 

on her back, arms, elbow, and legs. Gomez tried to 

stand up and lost consciousness. When Gomez 

awoke she was on the bed and [Appellant] told her 

to wash herself. She stood up and tried to walk, but 

lost consciousness again. [Appellant] threw a glass 

of cold liquid on her face to wake her up and said, 

“Go ahead and get washed off, I am tired of you 

playing.”

She made her way to the bathroom, losing 

consciousness along the way. At some point 

[Appellant] picked her up and “tossed” her into the 

bathtub. The shower was running and [Appellant] 

told her to clean herself. Gomez rinsed the blood off 

her face as [Appellant] said, “Look what you made 
J-S49036-17

- 3 -

me do to you. Why don’t you just listen to me?” 

Gomez stood up and lost consciousness again.

When she next awoke, [Appellant] was holding 

her by the neck against the bathroom window. He 

dropped her onto the floor and tried to kick her in 

the face to make her stand up. She blocked his foot 

with her hand and again lost consciousness. She 

next awoke in bed with a towel wrapped around her 

head. The apartment was quiet, it was dark outside, 

and her cat was lying on her.

She awoke Sunday morning to [Appellant] 

punching her and yelling at her. Desperate for the 

attacks to stop, Gomez said, “Yes, I have had affairs 

with everybody.” [Appellant] stopped hitting her and 

instead asked details about the affairs. Gomez made 

up stories to pacify [Appellant]. Later that day 

[Appellant] pushed Gomez against the bedroom 

window, which overlooked the front porch. She 

broke off all of the blinds as she fell to the floor, and 

at his direction she crawled towards the bed.

City of Pittsburgh police officers Troy Signorella, 

Ryan Young, and Dale Ruble were dispatched to 317 

Natchez Street late that Sunday afternoon on a 

domestic violence call. The officers knocked on the 

front and back door with no response. Officer Young 

remained at the back door while [O]fficer Signorella 

proceeded to the front porch, where he was able to 

look in the window.

When [Appellant] saw [O]fficer Signorella looking 

in the bedroom window he told Gomez, “I told you 

that if the police ever got here I was going to kill 

you.” [Appellant] ran between the bedroom and the 

living room looking for the bat. Gomez remained on 

the floor between the bed and the window, covered 

in a sheet. She had blood on her face and arms, 

there was blood on the wall, bed, and floor around 

her. Officer Signorella radioed for a medic, signaled 

to the officers Gomez’s condition and location, and 

told [Appellant] to let them in.
J-S49036-17

- 4 -

[Appellant] complied and opened the rear door for 

[O]fficer Young. The apartment was ransacked and 

bloody, with the heaviest concentration of blood in 

the bedroom. Officer Young proceeded directly to 

the bedroom to check on Gomez. Officer Signorella 

remained next to [Appellant], who repeatedly yelled 

at Gomez, “Tell me who did this to you.”

Officer Young updated the en route medics that 

Gomez had several head injuries, extreme swelling 

and bruising on her body, and difficulty breathing. 

Gomez told [O]fficer Young that [Appellant] attacked 

her. Officer Young indicated to [O]fficer Signorella 

to arrest [Appellant], and [O]fficer Signorella 

handcuffed [Appellant] to take him outside.

Officer Ruble noticed dried blood spots on 

[Appellant’s] shirt and a swollen right hand, and 

transported him to a different hospital than Gomez. 

[Appellant] gratuitously remarked en route that his 

hand was swollen from punching walls. [Appellant] 

was released from the hospital that day and 

transported to the Allegheny County Jail and charged 

as noted hereinabove. En route he repeatedly told 

[O]fficer Ruble that Gomez had been “seeing his best 

friend.”

Medics transported Gomez to the hospital. She 

had not eaten nor changed clothes since Friday 

evening. Gomez had a pre-existing condition 

(Parkinson’s disease) which complicated her 

treatment and condition. Due to previously 

implanted deep brain stimulators that interrupted 

EKG testing, the hospital was unable to ascertain 

what brain damage Gomez may have suffered as a 

result of this attack. Gomez suffered multiple 

ecchymosis throughout her body, two fractured 

vertebrae, three fractured ribs, a pneumothorax, 

facial bone contusions, acute renal failure, and four 

forehead lacerations. She was treated with fluid 

resuscitation and her lacerations were stapled. The 

hospital released Gomez five days later on April 29, 

2011, but she was readmitted on May 4, 2011, for 

an infection in her right forehead wound, a right 
J-S49036-17

- 5 -

ankle abscess, right kneecap fracture, and post 

traumatic stress disorder. The infection and abscess 

were surgically treated. Gomez was released to an 

assisted living home on May 12, 2011, where she 

spent one month. At the time of trial Gomez had 

scars and lumps on her forehead, nerve damage in 

her eyes and face, required the use of a cane or 

walker to ambulate, and it was apparent that the 

injuries she endured were severe and enduring.

Trial court opinion, 4/4/13 at 4-8 (citations omitted).

Appellant testified at trial and claimed that he did not 

commit the assaults against the victim. He averred that 

the beating occurred during a two-hour period of time 

when he left the apartment to give the victim time to 

decide whether she wanted to stay with [A]ppellant or 

leave to have an affair with his best friend. Appellant 

testified that he sat on Grandview Avenue in Mt. 

Washington for about two hours looking at the City of 

Pittsburgh and when he returned home, he found the 

house ransacked and bloody, and the victim terribly 

beaten. He testified that the victim said that “they” beat 

her and stole some money. Appellant insisted that the 

victim would not identify her attackers as they were a 

“motorcycle gang.” He also claimed that the victim would 

not let him call an ambulance.

Following a jury trial before the Honorable Edward J. 

Borkowski, [A]ppellant was found guilty of [aggravated 

assault―serious bodily injury, terroristic threats, unlawful 

restraint, and false imprisonment]. On July 12, 2012, 

Judge Borkowski sentenced [A]ppellant to an aggregate 

term of 13 to 26 years’ imprisonment. A timely notice of 

appeal was filed on December 27, 2012. 

Commonwealth v. Baynes, 2023 WDA 2012 at 1-5 (Pa. Super. filed Mar. 

11, 2014) (unpublished memorandum). This Court affirmed Appellant’s 

judgment of sentence, and our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal. 

See Commonwealth v. Baynes, 179 WAL 2014 (Pa. filed Oct. 2, 2014). 
J-S49036-17

- 6 -

On January 7, 2015, Appellant timely filed a pro se PCRA petition. The 

PCRA court appointed counsel who subsequently filed an amended petition, 

claiming that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or call 

Robert Spencer as a defense witness at trial. The Commonwealth filed an 

answer in response. Thereafter, Appellant filed a motion to appoint an 

investigator to locate, interview, and serve a subpoena on Spencer. The 

PCRA court denied the motion and issued notice of its intent to dismiss 

Appellant’s petition without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. On 

November 22, 2016, the PCRA court denied Appellant’s petition. Appellant 

timely appealed. 

Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

Whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s [PCRA] 

Petition without a hearing because trial counsel provided 

ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate or 

call Robert Spencer as a defense witness at trial.

Appellant’s Brief at 4. 

Appellant argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate 

or call defense witness Spencer at trial. Appellant claims trial counsel knew 

of Spencer’s identity, that he was on the list of potential witnesses, that he 

was subpoenaed for trial, and that he was present in the courtroom at the 

beginning of Appellant’s trial. Appellant states the victim, Ms. Gomez, 

testified that Spencer was at the apartment on the Saturday of the incident 

and threatened her. Appellant contends trial counsel knew Spencer would 

testify on Appellant’s behalf and would have been able to refute that 
J-S49036-17

- 7 -

Spencer was ever at the apartment threatening the victim. Appellant 

asserts trial counsel had no reasonable basis for her inaction, and the 

absence of Spencer’s testimony prejudiced Appellant and denied him a fair 

trial. Appellant maintains his PCRA petition presented a material issue 

regarding trial counsel’s ineffectiveness and, therefore, the PCRA court 

should have held an evidentiary hearing. Appellant concludes his judgment 

of sentence should be vacated and the case should be remanded for a new 

trial, or, alternatively, the case should be remanded for an evidentiary 

hearing. No relief is due. 

Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to 

examining whether the evidence of record supports the court’s 

determination and whether its decision is free of legal error. 

Commonwealth v. Conway, 14 A.3d 101, 108 (Pa. Super. 2011). This 

Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court if the record 

contains any support for those findings. Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 

A.2d 513, 515 (Pa. Super. 2007). We give no such deference, however, to 

the court’s legal conclusions. Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 

(Pa. Super. 2012). 

Nevertheless, “a PCRA petitioner is not automatically entitled to an 

evidentiary hearing. We review the PCRA court’s decision dismissing a 

petition without a hearing for an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. 

Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). Further, 
J-S49036-17

- 8 -

when the PCRA court denies relief without an evidentiary hearing, this Court 

must examine each of the issues raised in light of the record to determine 

whether the PCRA court erred in concluding there were no genuine issues of 

material fact. Id. (citation omitted). 

[C]ounsel is presumed to have provided effective

representation unless the PCRA petitioner pleads and

proves that: (1) the underlying claim is of arguable merit;

(2) counsel had no reasonable basis for his or her conduct;

and (3) [a]ppellant was prejudiced by counsel’s action or

omission. To demonstrate prejudice, an appellant must

prove that a reasonable probability of acquittal existed but

for the action or omission of trial counsel. A claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel will fail if the petitioner

does not meet any of the three prongs. Further, a PCRA

petitioner must exhibit a concerted effort to develop his

ineffectiveness claim and may not rely on boilerplate

allegations of ineffectiveness. 

Commonwealth v. Perry, 959 A.2d 932, 936 (Pa. Super. 2008) (quotation

marks and citations omitted). Furthermore, 

In order to prevail on a claim of ineffectiveness for failing 

to call a witness, a defendant must prove, in addition to 

meeting the three [ineffectiveness] requirements, that: (1) 

the witness existed; (2) the witness was available to 

testify for the defense; (3) counsel knew or should have 

known of the existence of the witness; (4) the witness was 

willing to testify for the defense; and (5) the absence of 

the witness’s testimony was so prejudicial as to have 

denied him a fair trial. 

Commonwealth v. Walls, 993 A.2d 289, 302 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation 

omitted). 

Additionally,

Where a petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing, the 

petition shall include a signed certification as to each 
J-S49036-17

- 9 -

intended witness stating the witness’s name, address, date 

of birth and substance of testimony and shall include any 

documents material to that witness’s testimony. Failure to 

substantially comply with the requirements of this 

paragraph shall render the proposed witness’s testimony 

inadmissible. 

42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(d)(1). 

Instantly, neither Appellant’s pro se nor counseled petitions included a 

signed, witness certification for Robert Spencer to comply with the 

requirements of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(d)(1).2 Thus, Appellant failed to plead 

that Spencer was willing to testify for the defense or the substance of his 

testimony. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(d)(1); Walls, 993 A.2d at 302. 

Therefore, any proposed testimony from Spencer would have been 

inadmissible. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(d)(1). 

In any event, Appellant appears to suggest that Spencer would have 

been able to impeach the credibility of Ms. Gomez’s account of the attack, in 

particular, her testimony that she heard Spencer threatening her during the 

time Appellant attacked her. Appellant’s Brief at 28-29. According to 

Appellant, Spencer could have contradicted Ms. Gomez’s testimony by 

stating he (Spencer) was not present at the time of the attack and did not 

threaten Ms. Gomez. Id. Although Ms. Gomez testified that she heard 

Spencer threaten her while Appellant was attacking her on Saturday, the 

second day of the attack, N.T. Trial, 4/16/12-4/17/12, at 73, we discern no 

 

2 We note that Appellant’s brief does not challenge the PCRA court’s decision 

not to appoint an investigator to locate Robert Spencer. 
J-S49036-17

- 10 -

basis to conclude that rebuttal of this minor point would have materially 

affected the credibility of Ms. Gomez or the fairness of the trial. Ms. Gomez 

consistently testified that Appellant attacked her over a three-day period, 

from Friday to Sunday. Id. at 35-52. Officer Young also testified that upon 

responding to the residence Ms. Gomez told him that Appellant had 

assaulted her. Id. at 101. Lastly, Spencer’s purported testimony would not 

have advanced Appellant’s defense that another individual or group of 

individuals attacked Ms. Gomez while Appellant was away from the residence 

for two hours on Sunday. Thus, Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the 

absence of this testimony was exculpatory or that the absence of the 

evidence deprived him of a fair trial. See Walls, 993 A.2d at 302. 

Accordingly, we affirm the PCRA court’s decision denying Appellant’s 

petition.

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/14/2017