J-A28014-11
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
MELANIE JAROMA, :
:
Appellee : No. 1438 EDA 2010
Appeal from the Order entered on April 23, 2010
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Criminal Division, No(s): CP-51-CR-0003462-2008;
MC-51-CR-0005201-2008
BEFORE: MUSMANNO, SHOGAN and FITZGERALD*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 26, 2014
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the Order granting
600 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. We reverse and
remand for further proceedings.
On January 29, 2008, Jaroma was charged with receiving stolen
property, theft by failure to make the required disposition of funds, and
tampering with records.1 On January 30, 2008, Jaroma was arrested and
subsequently released on her own recognizance. Between January 30,
2008, and August 13, 2009, there were a number of postponements and
continuances. On August 13, 2009, Jaroma filed a Rule 600 Motion seeking
dismissal of all charges. On August 19, 2009, the trial court heard oral
1
See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3925, 3927, 4104.
*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A28014-11
argument from both parties regard
thereafter denied the Motion as premature. See N.T., 8/19/09, at 14.
The case was subsequently scheduled for trial on April 12, 2010. On
pursuant to Rule 600. The trial court took the matter under advisement,
ordered the parties to file briefs on the issue, and set the matter for oral
argument. On April 23, 2010, the trial court heard argument from both
n, and thereafter granted the
Motion.
Order, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed and remanded for
consideration of its decision in Commonwealth v. Brock, 61 A.3d 1015
(Pa. 2013). Commonwealth v. Jaroma, 46 A.3d 816 (Pa. Super. 2012)
(unpublished memorandum), reversed and remanded, 77 A.3d 633 (Pa.
2013).
Upon remand, we reconsider the following issue:
the [Pennsylvania] Supreme Court plainly requires a written defense motion
The Commonwealth contends that a Rule 600 motion must be made in
writing. Id
-2-
J-A28014-11
written Rule 600 Motion was denied, the trial court erred in granting
ed in
written form. Id. at 10-15.
Our standard of review in evaluating a Rule 600 claim is whether the
trial court abused its discretion. Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d
1083, 1087 (Pa. 2010).
In Brock, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a Rule 600
motion must be made in writing. Brock, 61 A.3d at 1020. The Brock court
explained that, although the language of Rule 600 (formerly Rule 1100) has
been amended several times, under both versions of the rule the relevant
language is substantially the same, and requires a defendant to serve a copy
of the motion to dismiss upon the attorney for the Commonwealth. Id. at
1019; see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 cmt. The requirement that a copy of a
Rule 600 motion be served upon the attorney for the Commonwealth clearly
presupposes the filing of a written motion. See Brock, 61 A.3d at 1019.
court on August 19, 2009
presented to the trial court on April 12, 2010, was never reduced to written
form, in violation of Rule 600. Accordingly, the trial court erred by
entertaining and granting it.
Order reversed. Case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
-3-
J-A28014-11
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/26/2014
-4-