Com. v. Baldwin, L. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S37010-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. LESTER EMANUEL BALDWIN Appellant No. 1271 MDA 2016 Appeal from the Order Entered July 19, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Criminal Division at No: CP-35-CR-0000813-2015 BEFORE: STABILE, J., MOULTON, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED AUGUST 15, 2017 Appellant, Lester Emmanuel Baldwin, appeals pro se from the July 19, 2016 order denying his motion for release on nominal bail pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(D)(2). We affirm. Appellant was arrested and charged with possession with, among other things, intent to deliver a controlled substance (“PWID”), 35 P.S. § 780113(a)(30), in connection with an April 16, 2015 controlled drug buy. The Commonwealth filed its criminal complaint against Appellant and arrested him on April 17, 2015. Appellant was not released on bail. On May 31, 2016, Appellant filed a motion for release on nominal bail, asserting that he had been incarcerated for more than 400 days without being brought to trial and thus was entitled to release under Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(B)(1) and (D)(2). J-S37010-17 The trial court conducted a hearing on July 19, 2016 and denied the motion at the conclusion of that hearing. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal ten days later. The trial court determined, pursuant to this Court’s remand order, that Appellant’s waiver of counsel was knowing, intentional, and voluntary. See Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998). Appellant committed two procedural errors in filing a pro se notice of appeal. First, he proceeded pro se while represented by counsel in violation of the prohibition on hybrid representation articulated in Commonwealth v. Ellis, 626 A.2d 1137 (Pa. 1993). We will overlook this mistake in light of our remand for a Grazier hearing. Second, rather than file a notice of appeal from the trial court’s interlocutory order, Appellant should have filed a petition for review under Pa.R.A.P. 1762(b)(2). That rule governs Appellate review of orders relating to bail. In Commonwealth v. Jones, 899 A.2d 353 (Pa. Super. 2006), this Court treated the appellant’s notice of appeal from an order denying bail as a petition for review filed under Rule 1762(b)(2). Id. at 354 n.1. We will follow Jones here. We therefore turn to the merits of Appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in denying his motion for release on nominal bail. We conduct our review as follows: Our standard of review in evaluating Rule [600] issues is whether the trial court abused its discretion.... The proper scope of review in determining the propriety of the trial court’s ruling is limited to the evidence on the record of the Rule [600] evidentiary hearing and the findings of the lower court. In reviewing the determination of the hearing court, an appellate -2- J-S37010-17 court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Id. at 354 We have reviewed the applicable law, the parties’ briefs, the record, and the trial court’s opinion. We conclude that the trial court’s opinion accurately addresses the merits of Appellant’s arguments. In particular, we observe that this case proceeded with several defense continuances and other significant delays occasioned by Appellant’s inability to get along with appointed counsel. Appellant’s first two lawyers withdrew due to conflicts with Appellant, and Appellant elected to proceed pro se in this appeal after parting ways with his third appointed counsel. The record supports the trial court’s conclusion that most of the delay in this case is attributable to Appellant. We affirm the trial court’s order based on the trial court’s October 5, 2016 opinion. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 8/15/2017 -3- Circulated 07/31/2017 04:06 PM

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.