Com. v. Jaroma, M.

J-A28014-11 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : v. : : MELANIE JAROMA, : :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 Super. 2012) (unpublished memorandum), reversed and remanded, 77 A.3d 633 (Pa. 2013).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-