J-S21001-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellant

v.

TOSHIA MARIE SHEARER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1663 MDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered November 19, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s): 

CP-67-CR-0004617-2020

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED AUGUST 15, 2022

The Commonwealth appeals from the order granting the Motion to 

Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 600 filed by Appellee Toshia Marie Shearer. At issue 

is whether a period of 57 days—from July 6, 2020, to August 31, 2020—is 

excludable from the calculation of the mechanical run date of trial due to York 

County’s COVID-19 judicial emergency closure orders. Pursuant to 

Commonwealth v. Carl, 276 A.3d 743 (Pa. Super. 2022), we vacate and 

remand for reinstatement of the case.

On July 6, 2020,1the Commonwealth filed a criminal complaint against 

Appellee charging her with, inter alia, Possession of Controlled Substances. 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1

In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, the trial court refers to July 5, 2020, as the 

date Appellee was charged. However, the docket indicates the criminal 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S21001-22

- 2 -

On July 7, 2020, the magisterial district court scheduled a preliminary hearing 

for October 6, 2020. On October 6, 2020, the court held the matter for trial

and on October 29, 2020, Appellee waived her formal arraignment. 

The docket indicates that nearly a year later, on September 27, 2021, 

the court scheduled a status conference for October 8, 2021. On October 8, 

2021, the court ordered the case to be placed on the trial list for the week of 

November 8, 2021. 

On October 8, 2021, Appellee filed her Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 

Rule 600. The court held a hearing on the Rule 600 motion on November 16, 

2021, where the parties agreed that 91 days was excludable due to a judicial 

emergency COVID-19 shutdown from November 2020 to February 2021, but 

disagreed as to whether the 57 days following Appellee’s arrest until August 

31, 2020, when a local COVID emergency judicial declaration was in effect, 

was time to be excluded for purposes of Rule 600 calculations. On November 

19, 2021, the court granted Appellee’s motion and dismissed the case. The 

Commonwealth timely appealed. Both the Commonwealth and the trial court 

complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. 

In its sole issue raised for our review, the Commonwealth asserts that 

the trial court erred in granting Appellee’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 

600. Commonwealth’s Br. at 5. The Commonwealth argues that due to the 

____________________________________________

complaint was filed with the magisterial district court on July 6, 2020. July 6, 

2020, thus, began the running of the Rule 600 clock. Pa.R.Crim.P. 

600(A)(2)(a). We have adjusted the arithmetic throughout our memorandum.
J-S21001-22

- 3 -

COVID-19 pandemic emergency declaration entered by the President Judge of 

the York County Court of Common Pleas on May 27, 2020, the period between 

July 6, 2020, and August 31, 2020, should have been excluded from the 

calculation of the trial’s run date because the York County judicial emergency 

declaration extended the suspension of Rule 600 to August 31, 2020. See

Commonwealth’s Br. at 9. 

We review the trial court’s disposition of a Rule 600 motion for an abuse 

of discretion. Commonwealth v. Harth, 252 A.3d 600, 614 n.13 (Pa 2021). 

Rule 600 provides that trial must commence within 365 days of the filing of 

the complaint. Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(A)(2)(a). “[P]eriods of delay at any stage of 

the proceedings caused by the Commonwealth when the Commonwealth has 

failed to exercise due diligence shall be included in the computation of the 

time within which trial must commence. Any other periods of delay shall be 

excluded from the computation.” Id. at (C)(1). 

On March 18, 2020, our Supreme Court issued an emergency order in 

response to the COVID-19 pandemic which, among other things, suspended 

the application of Rule 600. The statewide judicial emergency and suspension 

of Rule 600 was extended to and ended on June 1, 2020. See In re General

Statewide Judicial Emergency, 229 A.3d 229 (Pa. 2020); In re General

Statewide Judicial Emergency, 230 A.3d 1015 (Pa. 2020); In re General

Statewide Judicial Emergency, 234 A.3d 408 (Pa. 2020). However, the 

Supreme Court allowed local judicial districts to extend their emergency 
J-S21001-22

- 4 -

orders beyond June 1, 2020, including the suspension of Rule 600 timeliness 

requirements. The York County President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas 

entered the following order on May 28, 2020:

Per the Supreme Court’s Order dated May 27, 202[0], authorizing 

President Judges to declare judicial emergencies in their judicial 

districts, I declare a judicial emergency in the 19th Judicial District 

through August 31, 2020. During the emergency the following 

shall apply:

(1) Limit in-person access and proceedings in order to 

safeguard the health and safety of court personnel, court 

users, and members of the public;

(2) Suspend statewide rules that restrict, directly or indirectly, 

the use of advanced communication technologies; and

(3) Suspend statewide rules pertaining to the rule-based 

right of criminal defendants to a prompt trial.

Any postponement caused by the judicial emergency shall 

be considered a court postponement and shall constitute 

excludable time for purposes of the application of Rule 600. 

[].

Declaration, entered May 28, 2020 (Adams, P.J.) (“See” citations omitted; 

emphasis added). The court entered a subsequent judicial emergency order

suspending trials from November 30, 2020, to February 28, 2021.

In Commonwealth v. Carl, 276 A.3d 743 (Pa. Super. 2022), this Court 

recently interpreted the plain language of the York County Declaration as 

providing that, regardless of the procedural posture of the case leading up to 

trial, the period of March 31, 2020, through August 31, 2020, is not to be 

included in Rule 600 calculations.

Construing Subsection (3) in accordance with the plain meaning 

of its words, we find that it clearly and simply directs that rulebased, “prompt trial” time computations are suspended for the 
J-S21001-22

- 5 -

duration of the judicial emergency at hand. The intended effect 

on Rule 600 computations in criminal cases existing at that time 

is thus evident: such computations are to be held in abeyance and 

shall not include days transpiring during the effective time of the 

Declaration until the expiration of the declared emergency, at 

which time resumption or commencement of such computations 

may proceed.

Id. at 750.

Carl is dispositive here. The mechanical run date of Appellee’s trial was 

July 6, 2021. When Appellee filed the Rule 600 motion on October 8, 2021, 

460 days had passed since the filing of the complaint. In granting the Rule 

600 motion, the trial court agreed with Appellee that the 57 days between 

July 6, 2021, and August 31, 2021, was attributable to the normal progression 

of the case and, thus, included in the mechanical run date. Pursuant to Carl, 

however, the judicial emergency order in effect during that time period 

suspended the application of Rule 600, rendering the challenged 57 days 

excluded from the mechanical run date. Accordingly, when combined with the 

91-day suspension attributable to the subsequent COVID-19 emergency 

order, Appellee’s trial run date would have been adjusted by 148 days to 

November 30, 2021. Accordingly, the court abused its discretion in granting

Appellee’s October 8, 2021 Rule 600 Motion to Dismiss.

We, thus, vacate the Order granting the Rule 600 motion and remand 

for further proceedings.

Order vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
J-S21001-22

- 6 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 08/15/2022