J-A34014-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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. 385 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 18, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-14-CR-0000302-2014

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OTT, J., and JENKINS, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED MARCH 01, 2016

Appellant, Theophilus L. Baldwin, appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered by the Honorable Pamela A. Ruest, Court of Common Pleas 

of Centre County. We affirm. 

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. Baldwin’s 

convictions arise out of a conspiracy with several other individuals to possess 

heroin with the intent to deliver it between August/September 2012 and 

February 2013. Baldwin’s involvement was documented by enforcement 

agents of the Office of Attorney General (OAG) pursuant to a wiretap 

executed on a co-conspirator’s phone. Baldwin’s involvement was also 

captured on video surveillance footage. 

Following a jury trial, Baldwin was convicted of possession with intent 

to deliver (PWID), conspiracy—PWID, delivery of a controlled substance, and 
J-A34014-15

- 2 -

criminal use of a communication facility. The trial court sentenced Baldwin to 

an aggregate term of 10 to 20 years’ imprisonment. Baldwin subsequently 

filed a post-sentence motion for reconsideration of sentence, which the trial 

court granted. Thereafter, the trial court amended the original sentence and 

sentenced Baldwin to an aggregate term of 4 to 8 years’ imprisonment. This 

timely appeal followed.

On appeal, Baldwin raises four issues for us to consider. In his first 

issue, Baldwin challenges the sufficiency of the Commonwealth’s evidence to 

support his convictions for PWID, conspiracy—PWID, delivery of a controlled 

substance, and criminal use of a communication facility. “The standard for 

review is whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all reasonable 

inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth as verdict winner, was sufficient to enable the factfinder to 

conclude that the Commonwealth established all of the elements of the 

offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Thompson, 922 

A.2d 926, 928 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted). 

Baldwin contends that the Commonwealth’s evidence was insufficient 

to convict him of PWID. Specifically, Baldwin argues that the Commonwealth 

failed to prove that he possessed with the intent to deliver over 50 grams of 

heroin, as provided in the bill of particulars, because no evidence of drug 

weights was presented at trial. See Appellant’s Brief, at 17. Thus, Baldwin 

maintains that “because the Commonwealth failed to prove that [he] 

delivered over the specified amount of heroin stated in their bill of 
J-A34014-15

- 3 -

particulars, the evidence was insufficient to convict [him] of Count I.” Id. 

We disagree. 

To convict a person of PWID, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt that the person possessed a controlled substance with the 

intent to deliver it and without legal authorization to do so. See 

Commonwealth v. Bricker, 882 A.2d 1008, 1015 (Pa. Super. 2005); see 

also 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). “The amount of the controlled substance is 

not ‘crucial to establish an inference of possession with intent to deliver, if ... 

other facts are present.’” Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233, 

1237 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted). “In determining whether there is 

sufficient evidence to support a PWID conviction, all facts and circumstances 

surrounding the possession are relevant, and the Commonwealth may 

establish the essential elements of the crime wholly by circumstantial 

evidence.” Bricker, 882 A.2d at 1015 (citation omitted). 

Here, Agent Thomas J. Moore, a narcotics agent with the OAG, 

testified regarding the intercepted phone calls, text messages, and video 

surveillance implicating Baldwin in a conspiracy to sell heroin. See N.T., 

Trial, 11/3/14, at 59-71, 74-85. Five witnesses testified that they purchased 

heroin from Baldwin. See id., at 116-119, 126, 135-136, 142-143, 157-158, 

166-169, 195-197, 209-210, 290. All of the witnesses provided specific 

details regarding their interactions with Baldwin, including the price, 

quantity, and quality of the heroin they purchased, as well as the general 

location where the transactions took place. See id. Thus, viewing the 
J-A34014-15

- 4 -

evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict 

winner, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence for upholding 

Baldwin’s PWID conviction. Based on the foregoing reasons, we also 

conclude that the evidence presented was plainly sufficient to support 

Baldwin’s convictions for delivery of a controlled substance1and criminal use 

of a communication facility.2

Baldwin’s final sufficiency challenge concerns his conspiracy to commit 

PWID conviction. Baldwin argues that there was insufficient evidence to 

convict him of PWID; thus, there was insufficient evidence to convict him of 

conspiracy to commit PWID. See Appellant’s Brief, at 20-21. He further 

maintains that the Commonwealth failed to prove that he was “acting in 

concert [with others] under a prior agreement to deliver any heroin”; thus, 

his conspiracy conviction cannot stand. Appellant’s Brief, at 21. We disagree. 

“To sustain a conviction of criminal conspiracy[,] ... [t]he 

Commonwealth must establish that the defendant (1) entered into an 

agreement to commit or aid in an unlawful act with another person or 

persons, (2) with a shared criminal intent, and (3) an overt act done in 

furtherance of the conspiracy.” Bricker, 882 A.2d at 1017 (citation 

____________________________________________

1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). 

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7512(a). 
J-A34014-15

- 5 -

omitted); see also 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903. Circumstantial evidence may suffice 

as proof of the conspiracy. See Bricker, 822 A.2d at 1017. 

As we previously stated, the evidence presented was sufficient to 

convict Baldwin of PWID. In viewing the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the Commonwealth, we also conclude that the evidence presented was 

sufficient to convict Baldwin of criminal conspiracy to commit PWID. The 

intercepted telephone calls, text messages, and video surveillance 

established that Baldwin regularly communicated with others about the 

possession and delivery of heroin. Thus, it was eminently reasonable for the 

jury to infer that Baldwin conspired with these individuals to commit PWID. 

Accordingly, the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence of criminal 

conspiracy. Because there was sufficient evidence to support all four 

convictions, Baldwin’s first issue on appeal is meritless. 

In his second issue, Baldwin contends that the trial court erred when it 

declined to deliver Jury Instruction 3.14 (Consciousness of Guilt, Flight, or 

Concealment) with respect to Mandy Mabry’s failure to appear and testify at 

trial. The record reflects that Ms. Mabry was to be called as a witness for the 

Commonwealth; however, the Commonwealth was unable to locate her to 

serve her with a subpoena to testify at trial. See N.T., Trial, 11/4/14, at 4-9. 

Baldwin argues that the trial court should have granted his request to 

provide the instruction to the jurors because there was evidence that Ms. 

Mabry “fled” prior to trial. Appellant’s Brief, at 27. 
J-A34014-15

- 6 -

“A trial court’s denial of a request for a jury instruction is disturbed on 

appeal only if there was an abuse of discretion or an error of law.” 

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 107 A.3d 52, 89 (Pa. 2014) (citation 

omitted). “It is axiomatic that ‘jury instructions ... are not warranted unless 

there is evidence to support such instructions.’” Commonwealth v. 

Milligan, 693 A.2d 1313, 1318 (citation omitted). 

The suggested instruction reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

Generally speaking, when a crime has been committed and a person 

thinks he or she is or may be accused of committing it and he or she 

flees or conceals himself or herself, such flight or concealment is a 

circumstance tending to prove the person is conscious of guilt. Such 

flight or concealment does not necessarily show consciousness of guilt 

in every case. A person may flee or hide for some other motive and 

may do so even though innocent. Whether the evidence of flight or 

concealment in this case should be looked at as tending to prove guilt 

depends upon the facts and circumstances of this case and especially 

upon motives that may have prompted the flight or concealment. 

Pa.S.S.J.I. (Crim) 3.14. 

Although Jury Instruction 3.14 was written specifically for the actions 

of the defendant, not another actor, this Court has held that “once a 

defendant properly introduces evidence that someone else fled the crime 

scene, the trial court is duty bound to instruct the jury concerning the 

significance of this evidence.” Milligan, 693 A.2d at 1317 (emphasis added). 

In the instant case, there was no evidence presented showing that Ms. 

Mabry fled a crime scene. Thus, there were no circumstances present 

warranting a flight or consciousness of guilt jury instruction. Accordingly, the 
J-A34014-15

- 7 -

trial court properly declined Baldwin’s request to give Jury Instruction 3.14. 

Baldwin’s second issue on appeal is meritless. 

Baldwin’s third issue on appeal was not included in his Rule 1925(b) 

statement. In his Rule 1925(b) statement, Baldwin asserts that his 

constitutional right to confrontation was violated when the trial court allowed 

Agent Moore to testify regarding his interpretation of the wiretapped 

discussions between Baldwin and Ms. Mabry. However, in his brief, Baldwin 

argues that the wiretapped conversations constitute hearsay without a valid 

exception. See Appellant’s Brief, at 27-28. Because Baldwin did not raise 

this issue in his Rule 1925(b) statement, it is deemed waived. See 

Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998) (“Any issues not 

raised in a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.”) 

In his fourth and final issue, Baldwin challenges the discretionary 

aspects of his sentence. Baldwin contends that the trial court erred when it 

determined that the weight of the heroin at issue for count I (PWID) and 

count II (conspiracy—PWID) was more than 50 grams.3 See Appellant’s 

Brief, at 30. 

____________________________________________

3 At first glance, it may appear as if this sentence violates the rule against 

judicially imposed mandatory minimums set forth in Alleyne v. United 

States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013). However, this case does not violate Alleyne 

because the sentence was imposed pursuant to advisory, rather than 

mandatory, guidelines; thus, the Sixth Amendment is not implicated. See 

United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738, 750 (2005). 
J-A34014-15

- 8 -

Prior to addressing this issue, we must determine if Baldwin’s claim is 

properly before us. Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing are 

not automatically reviewable as a matter of right. See Commonwealth v. 

Hunter, 768 A.2d 1136, 1144 (Pa. Super. 2001). “When challenging the 

discretionary aspects of a sentence, an appellant must invoke the appellate 

court’s jurisdiction by including in his brief a separate concise statement 

demonstrating that there is a substantial question as to the appropriateness 

of the sentence under the Sentencing Code.” Commonwealth v. McNear, 

852 A.2d 401, 407 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted); see also Pa.R.A.P. 

2119(f). An appellant’s Rule 2119(f) statement is required to include an 

articulation of “what particular provision of the [Sentencing] Code is 

violated, what fundamental norms the sentence violates, and the manner in 

which it violates the norm.” Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127, 132 

(Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). “If a defendant fails to include an issue 

in his Rule 2119(f) statement, and the Commonwealth objects, then the 

issue is waived and this Court may not review the claim.” Commonwealth 

v. Karns, 50 A.3d 158, 166 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted). 

Baldwin failed to file a Rule 2119(f) statement in his brief, and the 

Commonwealth objected to this failure. See Appellee’s Brief, at 26-27. 

Consequently, Baldwin has waived this issue. 

Because we conclude that none of Baldwin’s issues on appeal merit 

relief, we affirm the judgment of sentence. 
J-A34014-15

- 9 -

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/1/2016