Com. v. Baldwin, L.
278 MDA 2020
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 7, 2022Background
- Baldwin pled guilty (Dec. 2017) to delivery of a controlled substance; initially sentenced to time served (963 days) and 10 years probation.
- Probation was revoked (Feb. 2019) after Baldwin stipulated he committed a new offense (conspiracy to commit robbery) and was convicted.
- On resentencing (Dec. 30, 2019) the court imposed 24–48 months’ confinement + 2 years’ probation for the revoked sentence, to run consecutive to a 21–48 months + 2 years’ probation sentence on the new-conviction docket.
- The trial court awarded Baldwin 476 days’ credit for custody awaiting resentencing; Baldwin sought additional credit and raised challenges to the resentencing.
- Appellant’s counsel filed a Petition to Withdraw and an Anders brief; the Superior Court found the discretionary claims waived or frivolous, rejected the legality claims, affirmed the judgment, and granted counsel’s withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Baldwin) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Discretionary sentence excessive/abuse of discretion | Sentence (24–48 months) was harsh and beyond guidelines | Sentence was within statutory limits and justified by violation/new offense and criminal history | Waived for lack of preservation; frivolous on merits — sentence affirmed |
| 2. Court failed to articulate sufficient reasons for sentence | Sentencing judge did not adequately explain reasons | Judge considered PSI, violation history, lack of remorse; revocation explanations need not be elaborate | Rejected — reasons on record were sufficient |
| 3. Consecutive sentences improper | Running revocation sentence consecutively to new-conviction sentence was unreasonable | Court has discretion; aggregate 96-month max not unduly harsh given record | Rejected — consecutive terms within court’s broad discretion |
| 4. Credit for time served / double jeopardy | Baldwin sought credit for 963 days served before original sentence; also alleged double jeopardy | Court awarded 476 days credit for custody awaiting resentencing; prior credit already applied to initial sentence; revocation resentence is part of original sentence, not a second punishment | Rejected — additional credit would be duplicative per Bowser; double jeopardy claim baseless per Hunter |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (standards for counsel withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Pennsylvania guidance on Anders procedures)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 231 A.3d 1011 (Pa. Super. 2020) (clarifying Anders withdrawal requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc) (review of Anders withdrawal obligations)
- Commonwealth v. Pasture, 107 A.3d 21 (Pa. 2014) (revocation sentencing deference and required consideration)
- Commonwealth v. Bowser, 783 A.2d 348 (Pa. Super. 2001) (credit for time served cannot be duplicated on revocation resentence)
- Commonwealth v. Hunter, 468 A.2d 505 (Pa. 1983) (resentencing after revocation is part of original sentence, not separate punishment)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard for reviewing consecutive sentences)
- Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033 (Pa. Super. 2014) (trial court discretion on revocation sentencing)