J-S43001-19

____________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ALBERT FRASCHETTI

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1950 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 22, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0007677-2016

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED: FEBRUARY 7, 2020

Appellant, Albert Fraschetti, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered in the York County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial 

conviction for indecent assault of a person with a mental disability.1 For the 

following reasons, we vacate the conviction and judgment of sentence, and 

discharge Appellant. 

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. In 

2016, Appellant was an in-home aide for Victim, an adult male with Down 

Syndrome. In July 2016, Victim’s mother reviewed home-security camera 

footage of Victim and Appellant. The video showed Appellant had fondled 

Victim’s nipples and had Victim reciprocate the act upon Appellant, kissed 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(6). 
J-S43001-19

- 2 -

Victim, and exposed and touched himself while Victim played with a doll. 

On November 7, 2016, the Commonwealth filed a criminal complaint 

against Appellant in York County. The York County Court of Common Pleas 

schedules criminal jury trials by term every other month. Additionally, York 

County adopted a local rule to manage criminal cases in compliance with 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 600. See Y.C.L.R.Crim.P. 600. Under York County Local Rule 

600, the York County District Attorney’s Office assembles a “Rule 600 list” that 

ranks all cases the district attorney intends to call to trial that term by Rule 

600 priority, along with an estimated length for the trial for each case. Before 

the start of a trial term, the Commonwealth submits the list to court 

administration, who assigns cases from the Rule 600 list to the five criminal 

courtrooms in the York County Court of Common Pleas as the courtrooms

become available throughout the trial term.2 

On February 6, 2017, the court conducted a pre-trial conference in this 

case. During the conference, Appellant requested a delay in listing the case 

for trial during the March 2017 trial term, which began on March 6, 2017, to 

allow defense counsel time to communicate with potential trial witnesses. The 

trial court granted Appellant’s request and instructed the Commonwealth to 

____________________________________________

2 Prior to September 2017, under a previous version of York County Local Rule 

600, the Commonwealth submitted to each individual criminal judge a 

Rule 600 list which included only cases pending before that judge in a 

given trial term. Each judge called cases to trial only from that judge’s own 

Rule 600 list throughout a trial term. 
J-S43001-19

- 3 -

list the case during the May 2017 trial term (May 8, 2017, through May 26, 

2017). The Commonwealth, however, did not include Appellant’s case on the 

Rule 600 list for the May 2017 trial term, and Appellant’s case did not proceed 

to trial in May 2017. Instead, the Commonwealth put Appellant’s case for the 

first time on the Rule 600 list for the July 2017 trial term (July 10, 2017, 

through July 21, 2017), and designated the case as number 149 in Judge 

Snyder’s courtroom that term. Approximately 30 cases from Judge Snyder’s 

July 2017 list went to trial in July 2017; Appellant’s case did not go to trial. 

The next trial term was the September 2017 trial term (September 5, 

2017, through September 22, 2017). The Commonwealth put Appellant’s 

case on the September 2017 trial term Rule 600 list as number 288 out of 370 

overall, and estimated the trial would last one and one-half (11⁄2) days. Court 

administration did not call Appellant’s case for trial during the September 2017 

term or skip over the case. According to the court administrator, he “never 

got that far down the list” in September 2017. (N.T. Rule 600 Hearing, 

3/19/18, at 25). Several cases with higher priority numbers involving the 

attorneys in Appellant’s case were among the cases the court administrator 

did call to trial in September 2017. 

The next trial term was the November 2017 trial term (October 30, 

2017, through November 3, 2017, and November 13, 2017, through 

November 17, 2017). Appellant’s case appeared as a two-day trial at number 

177 out of 303 cases on the Rule 600 list for the November 2017 trial term. 
J-S43001-19

- 4 -

Again, court administration did not call Appellant’s case to trial. Per the court 

administrator, “we did not get to that case number, 177. We may have [gone] 

past it based on date certain cases.” (Id. at 26). The Commonwealth did not 

request a date certain for the next trial term. 

The next trial term was the January 2018 trial term (January 2, 2018, 

through January 18, 2018). On the January 2018 term Rule 600 list, the 

Commonwealth put Appellant’s case at number 74 out of 227, and estimated 

the trial would last two and one-half (21⁄2) days. Court administration skipped 

Appellant’s case during the January 2018 term multiple times for various 

reasons. Defense counsel was unavailable on January 5, 2018, and January 

8, 2018, and the prosecutor on the case was unavailable on January 9, 2018. 

On January 9 and 10, 2018, defense counsel, a public defender, was on trial 

in a case with a higher priority number on the January 2018 trial list. Court 

administration did not call Appellant’s case for trial on Thursday and Friday, 

January 11 and 12, 2018, due to the projected length of the case. Court 

administration again skipped Appellant’s case on January 16 through 18, 

2018, because both attorneys were trying a case together. Court 

administration bypassed Appellant’s case on January 19, 2018, as defense 

counsel was to begin trying another case with a higher priority number that 

day. Ultimately, Appellant’s case did not go to trial during the January 2018 

term. On January 31, 2018, the Commonwealth requested a date certain trial. 

The trial court granted the Commonwealth’s request on February 1, 2018, and 
J-S43001-19

- 5 -

scheduled Appellant’s trial for March 19, 2018. 

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 on 

March 16, 2018, asserting (i) only some of the time from the February 6th pretrial conference through the start of the May 2017 trial term was excludable 

delay and (ii) the Commonwealth failed to exercise due diligence in bringing 

Appellant’s case to trial. On March 19, 2018, the Commonwealth filed a 

response to Appellant’s motion, in which it stated, inter alia, it had placed 

Appellant’s case on the “ready list” each trial term since July 2017. That same 

day, the court conducted a hearing on Appellant’s Rule 600 motion. 

At the start of the hearing, the parties discussed whether any delay had 

resulted from Appellant’s February 6, 2017 pre-trial conference request to list 

the case for May 2017 term, rather than the March 2017 term. Appellant 

claimed the period February 6, 2017−March 6, 2017, did not constitute 

“delay” but was merely the normal progression of the case, because the first 

possible date for trial was March 6, 2017, the start of the March 2017 trial 

term. Appellant conceded the period from March 6, 2017−May 8, 2017, was 

excludable, in light of his pre-trial conference request to delay listing his case 

until the May 2017 trial term. 

The Commonwealth countered the entire period from February 6, 2017, 

through May 8, 2017, was excludable delay, extending the adjusted trial run 

date to February 7, 2018. During the exchange, however, the prosecutor 

acknowledged, “The Commonwealth wouldn’t have been able to go to trial 
J-S43001-19

- 6 -

either from that February pre-trial conference date until when it was listed out 

a term to the beginning of the May trial term.” (N.T. Rule 600 Hearing, 

3/19/18, at 5). The trial court agreed with the Commonwealth’s rationale, 

and determined the time from February 6, 2017, through May 8, 2017, was 

excludable delay due to Appellant’s February 6th request. 

Additionally, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of two 

witnesses, a York County assistant district attorney (“ADA”) and the court 

administrator. The ADA testified he is responsible for compiling the Rule 600 

list each trial term. He explained how he composes the Rule 600 list and how 

cases proceed to trial from the list:

... Obviously, in coordination with [ADA’s]. ...I would be 

notified as to what cases were ready for trial. At any given 

time, obviously. One thing that would be played is obviously 

if a case were set by a judge as a date certain, that certainly 

would have gone at the top of that list. ... 

* * *

[O]ur attorneys are certainly to let me know which cases 

are ready to and able to proceed to trial at any given time. 

[Under York County Local Rule 600,] we are to check our 

witnesses’ availability.... We are also required to check with 

defense counsel to see if they have any unavailability during 

the term. ... [O]ur office and our attorneys have been 

instructed to put that list together in a Rule 600 priority, 

unless for some reason it is unable to go at any given time. 

There may be certain cases based on the nature of the 

offense in which we would want [nameable] case to be 

bumped up ahead of just a mechanical run date. But, again, 

that would be up to the attorney to place it in that order. 

Otherwise, it would be placed again in order of Rule 600 

priority. 

* * *
J-S43001-19

- 7 -

[Under the current Local Rule 600,] the list is essentially 

created..., it is all five criminal courtrooms together in a 

combined list in the order in which the Commonwealth 

would like the cases called, barring a date certain or a judge

certain case, then just court administration would call those 

in that order, again barring that, or, an attorney’s 

unavailability who may be tied up in another courtroom or 

a witness’s unavailability on the Commonwealth or defense 

side. 

(Id. at 15, 17, 19). The ADA added, “Ultimately it is incumbent upon the 

ADA’s” to ensure Rule 600 compliance through the Rule 600 list. (Id. at 18). 

The court administrator testified he assigns cases from the Rule 600 list 

“primarily in the order [in] which they are listed to the courtrooms as they 

become available, taking into consideration the unavailability of any witnesses 

or the attorneys in the case.” (Id. at 22). When he chooses cases to proceed 

to trial, the court administrator also takes into account the projected length 

of a case. For example, court administration will not call a three-day case to 

trial on a Thursday. (Id. at 21-30). 

At the conclusion of the March 19, 2018 hearing, the court denied 

Appellant’s Rule 600 motion. The court explained its rationale on the record, 

in pertinent part, as follows:

I understand the due diligence argument, but we are at 

February 7th of 2018. ... 

* * *

So, as far as I am concerned, the issue as far as due 

diligence is did due diligence occur after that date.

* * *
J-S43001-19

- 8 -

The Commonwealth has 365 days to bring a case to trial 

from the date the complaint is filed. The question of due 

diligence doesn’t come into play for that period of 

time. Now, it does come into play after that period of 

time has elapsed. To me, the only time that due diligence 

would be of interest prior to that time is if there is an 

allegation the Commonwealth just hasn’t been doing 

anything for the last year on anything. 

So the question then is what is the argument for the period 

of time since February 7th of 2018? Is there any?

* * *

... And, frankly, from what I’ve heard, I think [the 

Commonwealth] ha[s] exercised due diligence. They 

certainly haven’t been sitting on their hands in this case or 

any other case. I think you know, or expect that you would 

agree with the [c]ourt that the public defender’s office, the 

district attorney’s office, and the judges that are assigned 

to do criminal jury trials are pretty busy. ... There is nothing 

that tells me that the Commonwealth was not acting with 

due diligence regarding the September or November terms. 

The fact that one case—the fact it may have been a case 

that had some lesser priority than this case, I don’t think 

that in itself is demonstrating lack of due diligence. 

* * *

(Id. at 32-34) (emphasis added). That day, Appellant proceeded to a jury 

trial. On March 22, 2018, the jury convicted Appellant of one count of indecent 

assault of a person with a mental disability. The court sentenced Appellant 

on June 22, 2018, to two and one-half (21⁄2) to five (5) years’ incarceration. 

On July 2, 2018, Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion, which the 

court denied on October 30, 2018. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal 

on November 27, 2018. The trial court ordered Appellant on November 29, 
J-S43001-19

- 9 -

2018, to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal per 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Appellant timely complied on December 20, 2018. 

Appellant raises two issues for our review:

DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING [APPELLANT]’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 600 WHERE 

THE MINIMUM DELAY THAT CANNOT BE EXCLUDED WAS 

403 DAYS AND THE COMMONWEALTH’S PURPORTED 

EFFORTS TO TRY THIS CASE ON TIME ESTABLISHED ONLY 

PRO FORMA ACTIONS THAT DO NOT AMOUNT TO DUE 

DILIGENCE?

DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN FINDING [VICTIM]

INCOMPETENT TO TESTIFY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY 

INDICATION THAT EITHER PARTY INTENDED TO PRESENT 

HIS TESTIMONY OR ANY OBJECTION TO HIS COMPETENCY, 

AND IN COMPOUNDING THAT ERROR BY INSTRUCTING THE 

JURY THAT [VICTIM] HAD BEEN DEEMED INCOMPETENT IN 

A WAY THAT CONFUSED THE JURY ON A KEY ELEMENT ON 

WHICH THE EVIDENCE WAS CLOSELY BALANCED?

(Appellant’s Brief at 5). 

In his first issue, Appellant argues his speedy trial rights were violated, 

because trial commenced more than a year after the Commonwealth filed its 

criminal complaint. Appellant contends the trial court incorrectly calculated 

the number of days of excludable time. Appellant notes Pennsylvania law 

provides time during which neither party is ready or able to proceed to trial is 

not excludable or excusable time, but he concedes the period from March 6, 

2017, through May 8, 2017, was excludable due to his pre-trial conference 

request to postpone the listing of his case for trial. Appellant claims York 

County Local Rule 600 authorizes the Commonwealth to determine the order 

in which cases proceed to trial based upon the Commonwealth’s prioritization 
J-S43001-19

- 10 -

of cases on its Rule 600 list. Appellant insists the Commonwealth’s inclusion 

of Appellant’s case on its Rule 600 lists for each trial term at any priority is 

merely pro forma conduct which, without more, does not demonstrate the 

Commonwealth acted with due diligence to bring Appellant’s case to trial in a 

timely manner. Appellant also avers the Commonwealth’s mere inclusion of 

his case on a given Rule 600 list does not establish the Commonwealth was 

ready to go to trial, as the Commonwealth cannot possibly be ready to proceed 

to trial on all cases on a list that includes between 200 and 300 cases.

Appellant maintains the Commonwealth’s request for a date certain trial, after 

his Rule 600 rights had already been violated, does not demonstrate due 

diligence. Appellant complains the trial court incorrectly determined the 

Commonwealth had acted with due diligence, as the court considered the 

Commonwealth’s conduct (i) during only a portion of the pre-trial period and 

(ii) with regard to its management of other cases called to trial before 

Appellant’s case, rather than its management just of Appellant’s case. 

Appellant concludes this Court should vacate his conviction and judgment of 

sentence and discharge him. We agree relief is due. 

“In evaluating Rule 600 issues, our standard of review of a trial court’s 

decision is whether the trial court abused its discretion.” Commonwealth v. 

Hunt, 858 A.2d 1234, 1238 (Pa.Super. 2004) (en banc), appeal denied, 583 

Pa. 659, 875 A.2d 1073 (2005). “An abuse of discretion is not merely an error 

of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied 
J-S43001-19

- 11 -

or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of 

partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will, as shown by the evidence or the record, 

discretion is abused.” Commonwealth v. Andrews, 213 A.3d 1004, 1010 

(Pa.Super. 2019). 

The proper scope of review...is limited to the evidence on 

the record of the Rule 600 evidentiary hearing, and the 

findings of the trial court. An appellate court must view the 

facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.

Additionally, when considering the trial court’s ruling, 

this Court is not permitted to ignore the dual purpose 

behind Rule 600. Rule 600 serves two equally 

important functions: (1) the protection of the 

accused’s speedy trial rights, and (2) the protection of 

society. In determining whether an accused’s right to 

a speedy trial has been violated, consideration must 

be given to society’s right to effective prosecution of 

criminal cases, both to restrain those guilty of crime 

and to deter those contemplating it. However, the 

administrative mandate of Rule 600 was not designed 

to insulate the criminally accused from good faith 

prosecution delayed through no fault of the 

Commonwealth.

* * *

So long as there has been no misconduct on the part 

of the Commonwealth in an effort to evade the 

fundamental speedy trial rights of an accused, Rule 

600 must be construed in a manner consistent with 

society’s right to punish and deter crime.

Hunt, supra at 1238-39 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 

Our Supreme Court has explained:

Rule 600 was designed to prevent unnecessary 

prosecutorial delay in bringing a defendant to trial. For 

purposes of calculating whether a defendant is brought to 
J-S43001-19

- 12 -

trial within the time constraints of Rule 600, requiring that 

commencement of trial be marked by a substantive, rather 

than a pro forma, event prevents the Commonwealth from 

manipulating the Rule 600 clock by initiating superficial or 

non-substantive court proceedings. Requiring that the 

commencement of trial be marked by a substantive event 

places an obligation on the Commonwealth to ensure that 

the spirit behind Rule 600 is not compromised.

Commonwealth v. Brock, 619 Pa. 278, 290, 61 A.3d 1015, 1021-22 (2013) 

(emphasis in original).

Rule 600 sets forth the speedy trial requirements and provides in 

pertinent part:

Rule 600. Prompt Trial

(A) Commencement of Trial; Time for Trial

* * *

(2) Trial shall commence within the following time periods.

(a) Trial in a court case in which a written complaint is 

filed against the defendant shall commence within 365 

days from the date on which the complaint is filed.

* * *

(C) Computation of Time

(1) For purposes of paragraph (A), periods 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.

* * *

(3)(a) When a judge or issuing authority grants or denies 

a continuance:
J-S43001-19

- 13 -

(i) the issuing authority shall record the identity of the 

party requesting the continuance and the reasons for 

granting or denying the continuance; and

(ii) the judge shall record the identity of the party 

requesting the continuance and the reasons for granting 

or denying the continuance. The judge also shall record 

to which party the period of delay caused by the 

continuance shall be attributed, and whether the time will 

be included in or excluded from the computation of the 

time within which trial must commence in accordance 

with this rule.

* * *

(D) Remedies

(1) When a defendant has not been brought to trial within 

the time periods set forth in paragraph (A), at any time 

before trial, the defendant’s attorney, or the defendant if 

unrepresented, may file a written motion requesting that 

the charges be dismissed with prejudice on the ground that 

this rule has been violated. A copy of the motion shall be 

served on the attorney for the Commonwealth concurrently 

with filing. The judge shall conduct a hearing on the motion.

* * *

Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(A)(2)(a), (C)(1, 3(a)), (D)(1).3 “Rule 600 generally requires 

the Commonwealth to bring a defendant...to trial within 365 days of the date 

the complaint was filed.” Hunt, supra at 1240. To obtain relief, a defendant 

must have a valid Rule 600 claim at the time he files his motion for relief. Id.

at 1243. 

____________________________________________

3 On October 1, 2012, a new Rule 600 was adopted, effective July 1, 2013. 

The relevant provisions of the current version of the Rule remain substantively 

similar to those in the former version of the Rule. 
J-S43001-19

- 14 -

“The mechanical run date is the date by which the trial must commence 

under Rule 600.” Commonwealth v. McNear, 852 A.2d 401, 406 (Pa.Super. 

2004). 

It is calculated by adding 365 days (the time for 

commencing trial under Rule 600) to the date on which the 

criminal complaint is filed. The mechanical run date can be 

modified or extended by adding to the date any periods of 

time in which delay is caused by the defendant. Once the 

mechanical run date is modified accordingly, it then 

becomes an adjusted run date. 

Id. In the context of Rule 600, “excludable time” is differentiated from 

“excusable delay” as follows: 

“Excludable time” is defined in Rule 600(C) as the period of 

time between the filing of the written complaint and the 

defendant’s arrest, provided that the defendant could not be 

apprehended because his whereabouts were unknown and 

could not be determined by due diligence; any period of time 

for which the defendant expressly waives Rule 600; and/or 

such period of delay at any stage of the proceedings as 

results from: (a) the unavailability of the defendant or the 

defendant’s attorney; (b) any continuance granted at the 

request of the defendant or the defendant’s attorney. 

“Excusable delay” is not expressly defined in Rule 600, but 

the legal construct takes into account delays which occur as 

a result of circumstances beyond the Commonwealth’s 

control and despite its due diligence.

Hunt, supra at 1241 (internal citations and footnote omitted). 

Rule 600 requires the trial court to determine whether the 

Commonwealth exercised due diligence. Commonwealth v. Selenski, 606 

Pa. 51, 59, 994 A.2d 1083, 1088 (2010); Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, Comment. “The 

Commonwealth bears the burden of proving due diligence by a preponderance 

of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Burno, 638 Pa. 264, 14, 154 A.3d 764, 
J-S43001-19

- 15 -

794 (2017). 

Due diligence is a fact-specific concept that must be 

determined on a case-by-case basis. Due diligence does not 

require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but rather a 

showing by the Commonwealth that a reasonable effort 

has been put forth. 

Commonwealth v. Brown, 875 A.2d 1128, 1138 (Pa.Super. 2005), appeal 

denied, 586 Pa. 734, 891 A.2d 729 (2005) (quoting Hunt, supra at 1241-42) 

(emphasis in original). “Due diligence includes, among other things, listing a 

case for trial prior to the run date, preparedness for trial within the run date, 

and keeping adequate records to ensure compliance with Rule 600.” 

Commonwealth v. Ramos, 936 A.3d 1097, 1102 (Pa.Super. 2007) (en 

banc), appeal denied, 597 Pa. 705, 948 A.2d 803 (2008). “To effectuate the 

purpose of Rule 600, the Commonwealth should be held to the requirement 

that it exercise due diligence at all times during the pendency of a case.” 

Commonwealth v. Robbins, 900 A.2d 413, 415 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal 

denied, 589 Pa. 720, 907 A.2d 1102 (2006) (internal quotation marks 

omitted) (emphasis added). See also Burno, supra at 313-14, 154 A.3d at 

793-94 (explaining excusable delay is not calculated against Commonwealth 

in Rule 600 analysis, as long as Commonwealth acted with due diligence at 

all relevant times). 

Absent a demonstration of due diligence, establishing that 

the Commonwealth has done everything reasonable within 

its power to guarantee that the trial begins on time, the 

Commonwealth’s failure to bring the defendant to trial 

before the expiration of the Rule 600 time period constitutes 

grounds for dismissal of the charges with prejudice.
J-S43001-19

- 16 -

Commonwealth v. Barbour, 647 Pa. 394, 399-400, 189 A.3d 944, 947 

(2018) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 

“[T]ime attributable to the normal progression of a case simply is not 

‘delay’ for purposes of Rule 600.” Commonwealth v. Mills, 640 Pa. 118, 

122, 162 A.3d 323, 325 (2017). Where the court enters a continuance:

If the defense does indicate approval or acceptance of the 

continuance, the time associated with the continuance is 

excludable under Rule 600 as a defense request. 

Significantly, when the defendant signs the 

Commonwealth’s motion for postponement and registers no 

objection to the postponement...the signed consent without 

objection can be interpreted as consent to the new date....

Hunt, supra at 1241 (internal citations omitted). Additionally, “where a trialready prosecutor must wait...due to a court calendar, the time should be 

treated as ‘delay’ for which the Commonwealth is not accountable.” Mills, 

supra at 122, 162 A.3d at 325 (emphasis added). Further, it is “inconsistent 

with both the letter and spirit of Rule 600” to state “time during which no one 

is prepared for trial—or even possibly could be ready—is ‘delay.’” Id. See 

also Robbins, supra at 415 (stating: “Where the Commonwealth was 

prepared to proceed throughout the pendency of a case, it demonstrated that 

it was prosecuting the defendant’s case with due diligence”).

Generally, “delays caused by pretrial motions constitute excludable time 

where the pretrial motion renders the defendant unavailable.” 

Commonwealth v. Hill, 558 Pa. 238, 250, 736 A.2d 578, 585 (1999). 

However, the mere filing of a pretrial motion by a defendant 
J-S43001-19

- 17 -

does not automatically render him unavailable. Rather, a 

defendant is only unavailable for trial if a delay in the 

commencement of trial is caused by the filing of the pretrial 

motion. If a delay is created, in order to establish that the 

delay is excludable, the Commonwealth must demonstrate, 

by a preponderance of the evidence, that it exercised due 

diligence in opposing or responding to the pretrial motion. 

Id. at 254-55, 736 A.2d at 587 (internal citations and footnote omitted). 

York County Local Rule 600 provides, in relevant part, as follows:

Rule 600. Prompt Trial

(A) The purpose of this rule is to ensure the efficient use 

of judicial resources, to provide sufficient judicial resources 

to the Commonwealth’s prosecuting agencies for the cases 

they intend to call for trial, and to ensure defendants receive 

reasonable notice of the jury term during which their trials 

will commence. Nothing in this rule shall limit or expand 

upon the provisions of Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 regarding 

calculation of time for commencement of trial.

(B) Definitions.

* * *

(3) Date-certain scheduling means the assigned judge, 

upon request of either party or sua sponte, orders that the 

trial shall commence on a specific date before any judge. ... 

(4) Date-and-judge-certain scheduling means the 

assigned judge, upon request of either party or sua sponte, 

orders that the trial shall commence on a specific date 

before that same judge. ... 

(C) No later than five business days prior to the first day 

of the trial term, the district attorney shall provide to the 

district court administrator, in a format to be prescribed by 

the district court administrator, a written list of all cases the 

district attorney intends to call to trial in the trial term. 

(1) The district attorney shall compile the list in order of 

priority for which the district attorney desires the court to 
J-S43001-19

- 18 -

allocate judicial resources for trial. 

* * *

(3) Prior to submission of the list, the district attorney 

shall consult with each defendant’s attorney or the selfrepresented defendant to determine the following 

information:

(a) the estimated length of time in days the parties 

jointly anticipate the trial to last from voir dire through 

closing instructions;

(b) any dates during the forthcoming term when either 

party will be unable to conduct the trial for any reason, 

including but not limited to unavailability of witnesses or 

attorneys;

(c) the reason, if any exists, either party believes any 

specific judge of this court would be precluded from 

presiding over the trial in the event the currently 

assigned judge is unavailable when the district attorney 

calls the case to trial; and,

(d) the reason, if any exists, why either party will 

require more than one hour of notice when directed to 

appear for trial.

(D) Beginning no later than one business day prior to the 

first day of the jury trial term, the district court 

administrator shall assign cases for trial as each judge 

becomes available. 

(1) The district court administrator shall start with 

the first case on the list provided by the district 

attorney and proceed through the list in sequence, 

continuing until either the list is exhausted or the trial term 

ends. Any cases ordered for date-certain or date-and-judge 

certain scheduling shall be assigned out of sequence as 

necessary to comply with the order. The district court 

administrator may make minor deviations to the 

sequence in which cases are assigned, to facilitate the 

efficient use of judicial resources. 
J-S43001-19

- 19 -

(2) If the next case on the list cannot proceed to trial for 

any of the following reasons, the district court administrator 

shall skip to the next case on the list and return to the 

skipped cases when the next judge becomes available:

(a) the court has previously ordered a date-certain or 

date-and-judge certain for the trial to commence later in 

the trial term;

(b) the prosecuting attorney, defendant or defendant’s 

attorney is already in trial with another case or is 

scheduled for an imminent date-certain or date-andjudge-certain trial in another case; or

(c) one or more factors previously documented in 

section (C)(3) above preclude commencement of trial 

before the available judge. 

(E) The district court administrator shall notify the judge 

of the trial assignment, and the judge shall direct the parties 

to appear to commence jury selection.

* * *

Y.C.L.R.Crim.P. 600(A), (B)(3-4), (C)(1, 3), (D) (E) (emphasis added) 

(effective by September 2017). 

Instantly, the Commonwealth filed a complaint against Appellant on 

November 7, 2016. Therefore, the mechanical run date for Rule 600 purposes 

was November 7, 2017. See McNear, supra. During the February 6, 2017 

pre-trial conference, the court (i) granted Appellant’s request to delay listing 

the case during the March 2017 trial term to allow Appellant time to contact 

potential trial witnesses and (ii) ordered the Commonwealth to list Appellant’s 

case for the May 2017 trial term, which began on May 8, 2017. As of the 

February 6, 2017 pre-trial conference, the earliest Appellant could have 
J-S43001-19

- 20 -

proceeded to trial was March 6, 2017, when the March 2017 trial term began. 

Thus, the 28-day period from February 6, 2017, through March 6, 2017, is 

neither excludable nor excusable delay; the parties could not have gone to

trial during that time, which is attributable to the normal progression of the 

case. See Mills, supra. 

To the extent Appellant appears to assert the period from March 6, 

2017, through the start of the May 2017 trial term on May 8, 2017, is not 

excludable or excusable because neither party was ready to proceed to trial, 

that argument is waived. Appellant did not raise that argument before the 

trial court and does not raise it expressly on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a); 

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 604 Pa. 176, 191, 985 A.2d 915, 924 (2009), 

cert. denied, 562 U.S. 906, 131 S.Ct. 250, 178 L.Ed.2d 165 (2010) (stating 

claim is waived where appellate brief does not include citation to relevant 

authority or fails to develop issue in any meaningful fashion capable of 

review). See also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (explaining general rule that issues not 

raised before trial court are waived and cannot be raised for first time on 

appeal). 

Rather, Appellant has conceded throughout the life of this case, 

including on appeal, that the time from March 6, 2017, through May 8, 2017, 

was excludable, due to his postponement request at the February 2017 pretrial conference. Thus, the 62-day period from March 6, 2017, through May 

8, 2017, was excludable delay. See Hunt, supra. Contrary to the 
J-S43001-19

- 21 -

Commonwealth’s contention at the Rule 600 hearing, only the 62 days 

between the start of the March 2017 trial term and the start of the May 2017 

trial term were excludable. As a result, the adjusted run date changed from 

November 7, 2017, to January 7, 2018, and not to February 7, 2018, as the 

Commonwealth claims. See McNear, supra. 

Subsequently, the Commonwealth did not list Appellant’s case for the 

May 2017 trial term, and the case did not go to trial in May 2017. The record 

lacks any indication of the parties’ readiness to proceed to trial in May 2017 

or an explanation for the Commonwealth’s omission of the case from its Rule 

600 list. Thus, the 63-day period between the start of the May 2017 trial term

(May 8, 2017) and the start of the July trial term (July 10, 2017) is neither 

excludable nor excusable time. See Mills, supra. 

In July 2017, the Commonwealth placed Appellant’s case on a Rule 600 

list for the first time. In keeping with the previous version of Local Rule 600, 

the Commonwealth listed Appellant’s case for the July 2017 trial term, as case 

number 149 in Judge Snyder’s courtroom. Judge Snyder called approximately 

30 cases to trial in July 2017. Appellant’s case was not called. 

In September 2017, under the current Local Rule 600, the 

Commonwealth listed Appellant’s case at number 288 of 370 cases. The court 

administrator did not call Appellant’s case to trial in September 2017. The 

record indicates, and the parties agree, that Judge Snyder and the court 

administrator did not call Appellant’s case to trial during the July and 
J-S43001-19

- 22 -

September 2017 trial terms, respectively, due to the position of Appellant’s 

case on the Commonwealth’s Rule 600 lists for those trial terms. The adjusted

run date remained January 8, 2018. The period from the start of the July 

2017 trial term through the end of the September 2017 term constituted 

normal progression of the case, in light of the local practice in York County of 

prioritizing and selecting cases for trial as well as the January 8, 2018 adjusted 

run date, and was neither excludable nor excusable. See id. 

For the November 2017 trial term, the Commonwealth designated 

Appellant’s case as number 177 out of 303 cases on the Rule 600 list. The 

court administrator did not call Appellant’s case to trial during the November 

2017 trial term, because he “did not get to that case number 177.” The 56-

day period between the end of the September 2017 trial term through the 

November 2017 trial term (September 22, 2017, through November 17, 2017) 

constituted normal case progression, given the local practice in York County 

and January 2018 adjusted run date, and was neither excludable nor 

excusable delay. See id.

For the January 2018 trial term, the Commonwealth listed Appellant’s 

case as number 74 out of 227 cases on the January 2018 Rule 600 list. 

Appellant’s case did not go to trial in the January 2018 trial term for various 

reasons, several of which relate to the Commonwealth’s composition of the 

January 2018 Rule 600 list. For example, both attorneys were called into trials 

on other cases with higher priority numbers on the list throughout the January 
J-S43001-19

- 23 -

2018 trial term. Although the adjusted run date was January 8, 2018, the 

Commonwealth did not request a date-certain trial until January 31, 2018, 23 

days after the adjusted run date had passed and 13 days after the January 

2018 trial term had concluded. Contrary to the trial court’s rationale the 

Commonwealth was required to act with due diligence for purpose of Rule 600 

throughout the course of Appellant’s case, not only after the adjusted run date 

had expired. See Burno, supra; Robbins, supra. Consequently, the 

Commonwealth’s mere inclusion of Appellant’s case on its January 2018 Rule 

600 list, particularly at a position of only moderate priority, was insufficient to 

establish the Commonwealth acted with due diligence ahead of the January 8, 

2018 adjusted run date. See Ramos, supra; Brown, supra. See also 

Commonwealth v. Williams, 125 A.3d 425, 430 n.6 (Pa.Super. 2015) 

(quoting Commonwealth v. Keller, 477 A.2d 523, 526 n.3 (Pa.Super. 

1984)) (providing local rules may not be utilized to render Pennsylvania Rules 

of Criminal Procedure meaningless). The 75-day period from the end of the 

November 2017 trial term or November 17, 2017, through the 

Commonwealth’s request on January 31, 2018, for a date certain for trial does 

not constitute excludable or excusable delay. The Commonwealth’s failure to 

request a date-certain trial ahead of the January 2018 trial term shows the 

Commonwealth failed to act with due diligence in bringing Appellant’s case to 

trial in a timely manner. See Ramos, supra; Brown, supra. 

Upon the Commonwealth’s January 31, 2018 date-certain request, the 
J-S43001-19

- 24 -

court scheduled Appellant’s trial for March 19, 2018. The Commonwealth’s 

date-certain request after the January 8, 2018 adjustable run date does not 

constitute due diligence. See Ramos, supra; Brown, supra. On March 16, 

2018, Appellant filed a motion to dismiss per Rule 600. The court conducted 

a hearing and denied the motion on March 19, 2018. That same day, the 

parties proceeded to trial. The filing of Appellant’s Rule 600 motion did not 

delay the start of trial or cause any excludable delay. See Hill, supra. Thus, 

the 46-day period from the Commonwealth’s January 31, 2018 date-certain 

request through the start of trial on March 19, 2018, is not excludable or 

excusable. 

The following chart summarizes the delays prior to trial:

DATES ACTIVITY DAYS 

DELAY

EXCLUDABLE OR 

EXCUSABLE

ADJUSTED 

RUN DATE

2/6/17-

3/6/17

At pre-trial conference, 

Appellant requested delay in

listing case until May 2017 trial 

term to allow time to interview 

potential witnesses

28 No; first date 

case could go to 

trial after pretrial conference 

was March 6, 

2017; normal 

progression of 

case

11/7/17

3/6/17-

5/8/17

Appellant’s requested delay

postponed his case for trial from 

the March 2017 trial term until 

the May 2017 trial term

62 Excludable; 

Appellant 

conceded time 

was excludable

1/8/18

5/8/17-

7/10/17

Commonwealth did not include 

Appellant’s case on Rule 600 list 

for the May 2017 trial term; 

Appellant did not proceed to trial

63 No; normal 

progression of 

case

1/8/18
J-S43001-19

- 25 -

7/10/17-

9/5/17

Commonwealth listed 

Appellant’s case as number 149 

for the July 2017 trial term; 

Appellant did not proceed to trial

57 No; normal 

progression of 

case

1/8/18

9/5/17-

9/22/17

Commonwealth listed 

Appellant’s case as number 288 

out of 370 cases for the 

September 2017 trial term; 

Appellant did not proceed to trial

17 No; normal 

progression of 

case

1/8/18

9/22/17-

11/17/17

Commonwealth listed 

Appellant’s case as number 177 

out of 303 cases for the 

November 2017 trial term; 

Appellant did not proceed to trial

56 No; normal 

progression of 

case

1/8/18

11/17/17

-1/31/18

Commonwealth did not request 

a date-certain trial after the 

November 2017 trial term but

listed Appellant’s case as 

number 74 out of 227 cases for 

the January 2018 trial term;

Appellant did not proceed to trial

75 No; 

Commonwealth

failed to request 

date certain for 

trial before the 

adjusted run date

1/8/18

1/31/18-

3/19/18

Commonwealth first requested a 

date certain for trial on 1/31/18; 

court scheduled trial for 3/19/18

46 No;

Commonwealth 

requested date 

certain trial after 

adjusted run date 

had expired

1/8/18

Given this record, viewed in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, as well as Appellant’s concession of 62 days of excludable 

time, Appellant still proceeded to trial two months after the adjusted run date 

in his case and had a valid Rule 600 claim when he filed his motion. See 

Hunt, supra. Here, the Commonwealth was primarily responsible for the 

delay in Appellant’s trial because it failed to list the case appropriately to 

ensure its priority, particularly when Appellant’s adjusted run date drew near. 

The Commonwealth must bear the burden of its own miscalculation of the 
J-S43001-19

- 26 -

adjusted run date. Further, the court administration took its cue from the 

Commonwealth’s Rule 600 priority list throughout the case, while trying to 

manage the caseloads during the various trial terms. It was incumbent chiefly 

upon the Commonwealth to list Appellant’s case to ensure trial would proceed 

within the reasonable parameters of Rule 600, including a timely request for 

a date certain for trial. Although other factors were involved, they do not 

serve to explain or excuse the Commonwealth’s failure to act with due 

diligence in this case. Accordingly, we vacate Appellant’s conviction and the 

judgment of sentence, and discharge Appellant.4

Conviction and judgment of sentence vacated; Appellant is discharged. 

Jurisdiction is relinquished. 

Judge Dubow joins this memorandum.

President Judge Emeritus Stevens files a dissenting memorandum.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 02/07/2020

____________________________________________

4 Due to our disposition, we decline to address Appellant’s remaining issue on 

appeal.