J-S20042-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

THEOPHILUS L. BALDWIN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1691 MDA 2023

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 13, 2023

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

No(s): CP-14-CR-0000686-2015

BEFORE: OLSON, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: JULY 22, 2024

Theophilus L. Baldwin appeals from the November 13, 2023 order 

dismissing his second amended petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction 

Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. After careful review, we 

affirm. 

The PCRA court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history 

of this case as follows:

Following the issuance of a presentment by the ThirtySixth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, on January 

29, 2014, the Commonwealth filed a criminal 

complaint charging [Appellant] with several violations 

of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device, and 

Cosmetic Act (Drug Act) [and] Criminal Use of a 

Communication Facility. On February 19, 2014, after 

a preliminary hearing, the charges were held for court. 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S20042-24

- 2 -

On March 5, 2014, an Information was filed. On June 

20, 2014, [Appellant] filed an omnibus pretrial motion 

which included a motion to sever. On August 19, 

2014, the Court issued an order granting the 

severance motion.

On November 3-4, 2014, a jury trial was held. 

[Appellant] was found guilty of counts one, two, three, 

and six. The trial court entered a nolle prosequi as 

to counts four and five. On December 18, 2014, 

[Appellant] was sentenced to an aggregate term of 

incarceration in a state correctional facility of ten to 

twenty years. On December 29, 2014, [Appellant]

filed a post-sentence motion seeking modification of 

the sentence imposed to allow Recidivism Risk 

Reduction Incentive (RRRI) eligibility. On January 27, 

2015, after a hearing, the trial court granted the postsentence motion and issued an amended sentencing 

order. On February 24, 2015, [Appellant] filed a 

timely notice of appeal.

On appeal, [Appellant] challenged the sufficiency of 

the evidence, one of the Court’s jury instructions, an 

evidentiary ruling; and the discretionary aspects of his 

sentence. On March 1, 2016, the Superior Court of 

Pennsylvania affirmed [Appellant’s] judgment of 

sentence. [Appellant] did not seek allowance of 

appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.[

1]

On March 31, 2015, the Commonwealth filed a motion 

to assign a new docket number to effectuate the 

Court’s August 19, 2014 severance order. On April 6, 

2015, the Court granted the Commonwealth’s motion, 

and the instant docket was generated. On May 28, 

2015, [Appellant] filed a motion to dismiss, alleging 

the Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed. An amended 

motion to dismiss was filed on July 1, 2015. On July 

21, 2015, the Court issued an order denying the

motion to dismiss. On July 24, 2015, [Appellant] filed 

a motion seeking amendment of the Court’s order to 

____________________________________________

1 Commonwealth v. Baldwin, ___ A.3d ___, 2016 WL 800677 (Pa.Super. 

2016) (unpublished memorandum).
J-S20042-24

- 3 -

permit the filing of an interlocutory appeal by 

permission and a motion to stay the proceedings 

pending the filing of a petition for permission to 

appeal[.] On August 19, 2015, the Court denied the 

motion to stay.

On September 24, 2015, [Appellant] entered guilty 

pleas to Delivery of a Controlled Substance, Criminal 

Conspiracy, and Criminal Use of a Communication 

Facility. On that date, [Appellant] was sentenced to 

serve three to six years of incarceration in a state 

correctional facility. This term of incarceration was 

ordered to be served consecutive to the term of 

incarceration imposed at docket number 302-2014[.]

On October 6, 2015, [Appellant] filed a post-sentence 

motion seeking credit for time-served. On October 

15, 2015, the Court issued an order granting 

[Appellant’s] post-sentence motion in part which the 

Court amended on November 17, 2015. [Appellant] 

did not file a notice of appeal.

On March 10, 2016, [Appellant] filed a pro se PCRA 

petition. On June 20, 2016, [Appellant] filed a 

counseled amended PCRA petition challenging the trial 

court’s jurisdiction over the matter and alleging trial 

counsel was ineffective for, inter alia, advising 

[Appellant] not to appeal his judgment of sentence. 

On September 19, 2016, the Commonwealth 

answered the amended petition. An evidentiary 

hearing was held on January 20, 2017. On March 23, 

2017, this Court granted [Appellant’s] petition, in 

part, reinstating his direct appeal rights.

On April 20, 2017, filed a notice of appeal nunc pro 

tunc. On appeal, [Appellant] alleged that this Court 

lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea and “the 

Commonwealth was barred from prosecuting [him] on 

any non-severed counts that could have been tried

together at his jury trial” at docket number 302-2014. 

On December 20, 2017, the Superior Court affirmed 

[Appellant’s] judgment of sentence, finding that this 

Court did have jurisdiction to assign a new docket 

number for the severed counts and that the 
J-S20042-24

- 4 -

Commonwealth was not barred from filing an 

amended information and proceeding on the charges 

in this case following completion of his case at docket 

302-2014[.][2]

On October 9, 2018, Baldwin filed a pro se PCRA 

petition. On November 13, 2018, the Court appointed 

Ronald McGlaughlin, Esquire to represent [Appellant]. 

On June 14, 2019, [Appellant] filed a counseled 

amended PCRA petition. On June 15, 2022, 

[Appellant] filed a second amended PCRA petition. 

This Court held an evidentiary hearing on May 2, 2023 

and has since received briefs on the issues. 

PCRA court opinion, 11/13/23 at 1-4 (citation omitted; footnotes added).

Following the May 2, 2023 evidentiary hearing, the PCRA court entered 

an opinion and order on November 13, 2023 dismissing Appellant’s second 

amended petition with prejudice. This timely appeal followed on December 

11, 2023.

3

Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

I. Did the [PCRA] court commit an error of law or 

abuse of discretion in finding that Appellant’s 

[appellate] counsel was not ineffective in failing 

to discover a factual error in this court’s opinion 

of December 20, 2017, indexed to 675 MDA

2017?

II. Did the [PCRA] court commit an error of law or 

abuse of discretion in determining that all 

remaining issues raised in Appellant’s amended 

PCRA and second amended [PCRA] were 

____________________________________________

2 Commonwealth v. Baldwin, ___ A.3d ___, 2017 WL 6505788 (Pa.Super. 

2017) (unpublished memorandum).

3 Appellant and the PCRA court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. 
J-S20042-24

- 5 -

substantive issues that could have been raised 

previously, and therefore, are considered 

waived?

Appellant’s brief at 4 (extraneous capitalization omitted). 

Proper appellate review of a PCRA court’s dismissal of a PCRA petition 

is limited to the examination of “whether the PCRA court’s determination is 

supported by the record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Miller, 

102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted). “This Court grants 

great deference to the findings of the PCRA court, and we will not disturb those 

findings merely because the record could support a contrary holding.” 

Commonwealth v. Patterson, 143 A.3d 394, 397 (Pa.Super. 2016) (citation 

omitted). In order to be eligible for PCRA relief, a defendant must plead and 

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction or sentence 

arose from one or more of the errors listed at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2). 

These issues must be neither previously litigated nor waived. 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 9543(a)(3).

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the PCRA, 

a petitioner must establish the following three factors: “first[,] the underlying 

claim has arguable merit; second, that counsel had no reasonable basis for 

his action or inaction; and third, that Appellant was prejudiced.” 

Commonwealth v. Charleston, 94 A.3d 1012, 1020 (Pa.Super. 2014) 

(citation omitted), appeal denied, 104 A.3d 523 (Pa. 2014). 

[A] PCRA petitioner will be granted relief only when he 

proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his 
J-S20042-24

- 6 -

conviction or sentence resulted from the [i]neffective 

assistance of counsel which, in the circumstances of 

the particular case, so undermined the 

truth-determining process that no reliable 

adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken 

place. 

Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294, 311 (Pa. 2014) (internal quotation 

marks omitted; some brackets in original), citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 9543(a)(2)(ii).

“[C]ounsel is presumed to be effective and the burden of demonstrating 

ineffectiveness rests on appellant.” Commonwealth v. Ousley, 21 A.3d 

1238, 1242 (Pa.Super. 2011) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 30 A.3d 487 

(Pa. 2011). 

Following our thorough review of the record, including the briefs of the 

parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the PCRA court, 

we conclude that Appellant’s claims on appeal warrant no relief. The PCRA

court’s November 13, 2023 opinion discussed each of Appellant’s issues and 

concluded that they were without merit. We find that the PCRA court’s 

conclusions are supported by competent evidence and are clearly free of legal 

error. Accordingly, we adopt the comprehensive and well-reasoned November 

13, 2023 opinion of the Honorable Jonathan D. Grine as our own for purposes 

of this appellate review.4 

____________________________________________

4 We instruct the parties to attach a copy of the PCRA opinion to any future 

filings.
J-S20042-24

- 7 -

Order affirmed; Applications denied.5

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/22/2024

____________________________________________

5 On February 14, 2024, Appellant filed a pro se application for relief

requesting the withdrawal of his appellate counsel. Thereafter, on March 13,

2024, Appellant filed an application requesting permission to proceed pro se 

or that this matter be remanded for the appointment of new PCRA counsel. 

Appellant’s applications, which were filed while he was presently represented 

Attorney McGlaughlin, are denied as untimely. See Commonwealth v. 

Grazier, 713 A.2d 81, 82 (Pa. 1998) (“This court held, however, that when 

an appellant requests pro se status after his counsel has filed an appellate 

brief, the request is untimely.”). 
r• 

IN THE COURT OF COMNION PLEAS OF CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN6 

CRIMINAL ACTION — LAW 

COMMONWEALTH OF 

PENNSYLVANIA, 

V. 

THEOPHILUS BALDWIN 

Defendant 

NO. CP-14-CR-686-2015 

Attorneyfor Defendant: Ronald S ,lltc-Glaughlin, Esquire 

Attorneyfor Commonwealth.. Christopher J. Schmidt, Esquire 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Presently before the Court is the matter of the Theophius Baldwin's (Defendant) Second 

Amended Petition for Post- Conviction Relief filed on June 15, 2022. A hearing on this matter 

was heard on May 2, 2023. For the following reasons. Defendant's Amended Petition is 

DENIED. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

Following the issuance of a presentment by the Thirty- Sixth Statewide Investigating 

Grand Jury, on January 29, 2014, the Commonwealth filed a criminal complaint charging 

Baldwin with several violations of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device, and Cosmetic Act 

(Drug Act) Criminal Use of a Communication Facility. On February 19, 2014, after a 

preliminary hearing, the charges were held for court. On March 5, 2014, an Information was 

filed. On June 20, 2014, Baldwin Oiled an omnibus pretrial motion which included a motion to 

sever. On August 19, 2014, the Court issued an order granting the severance motion. 

00 ❑RD ❑ S 

Circulated 07/03/2024 04:19 PM