J-S23038-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellant

v.

SHARRON LOWRY

Appellee

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2404 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered August 29, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0001539-2022

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED OCTOBER 26, 2023

Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals from the order 

entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the 

motion of Appellee, Sharron Lowry, to dismiss all charges against him under 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 600. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

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

February 25, 2021, the Commonwealth charged Appellee with possessing a 

controlled substance with intent to deliver, criminal conspiracy, possessing a 

firearm by a prohibited person, possessing a firearm with an altered 

manufacturer’s number, carrying a firearm without a license, possession of a 

controlled substance, carrying a firearm in public, and possessing an 
J-S23038-23

- 2 -

instrument of crime.1 After several continuances, a preliminary hearing was 

conducted on March 1, 2022. On August 26, 2022, Appellee filed a motion to 

dismiss the charges pursuant to Rule 600. On August 29, 2022, the court 

held a hearing on Appellee’s Rule 600 motion, after which the court granted 

Appellee relief. The Commonwealth filed a timely notice of appeal on 

September 19, 2022. The court subsequently ordered the Commonwealth to 

file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b), and the Commonwealth timely complied on September 29, 2022. 

The Commonwealth raises one issue on appeal:

Did the [trial] court err by dismissing all charges under Rule 

600, where statewide and local court orders unambiguously 

suspended Rule 600(C) for a judicial emergency from the 

date the criminal complaint was filed through October 1, 

2021, and where only 149 days between October 1, 2021 

and the date that the [trial] court dismissed the charges 

were includable?

(Commonwealth’s Brief at 4).

Our standard of review of a Rule 600 decision is as follows: “In general, 

a trial court’s [ruling on] a Rule 600 motion is reviewed for an abuse of 

discretion; however, it is subject to plenary review when the dispositive 

question implicates legal issues.” Commonwealth v. Malone, 294 A.3d 

1247, 1248 (Pa.Super. 2023) (quoting Commonwealth v. Lear, 290 A.3d 

____________________________________________

1 See 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30); 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 903(c), 6105(a)(1), 

6110.2(a), 6106(a)(1); 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16); 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6108, and 

907(a), respectively. 
J-S23038-23

- 3 -

709, 718 (Pa.Super. 2023), appeal granted, 2023 WL 6416182 (Pa. Oct. 3, 

2023)).

The Commonwealth argues that the trial court erred in granting 

Appellee’s motion to dismiss because the court improperly applied a due 

diligence analysis and failed to exclude from the speedy trial calculation the

time where Rule 600 had been suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Specifically, the Commonwealth argues that although 550 calendar days had 

passed between the filing of the complaint and the dismissal of charges, most 

of that time was excludable. Relying on this Court’s holdings in Lear, supra

and Malone, supra, the Commonwealth insists that the statewide judicial and 

local orders unambiguously suspended Rule 600 without qualification until 

October 1, 2021; therefore, the trial court was required to exclude the first 

218 days of pre-trial proceedings. When those days are taken into 

consideration, along with the 181 days after October 1, 2021 that the trial 

court found were attributable to excusable delay, the Commonwealth 

maintains that only 149 days had passed, well within Rule 600’s requirements. 

The Commonwealth concludes the trial court erred in granting the Rule 600 

motion, and this Court must reverse and remand for further proceedings. We 

agree relief is due.

Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600 provides, in relevant part:

(A) Commencement of Trial; Time for Trial

(1) For the purpose of this rule, trial shall be deemed 

to commence on the date the trial judge calls the case 
J-S23038-23

- 4 -

to trial, or the defendant tenders a plea of guilty or 

nolo contendere.

(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.

(2) For purposes of paragraph (B), only periods of 

delay caused by the defendant shall be excluded from 

the computation of the length of time of any pretrial 

incarceration. Any other periods of delay shall be 

included in the computation.

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

denies a continuance:

(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 
J-S23038-23

- 5 -

computation of the time within which trial must 

commence in accordance with this rule.

(b) The determination of the judge or issuing authority 

is subject to review as provided in paragraph (D)(3).

(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.

In March 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, our Supreme 

Court issued several statewide judicial emergency orders that, among other 

things, suspended Rule 600 until at least June 1, 2020.

2

 In Lear, supra, this 

Court discussed the implications of the COVID-19 related statewide judicial 

orders suspending Rule 600. Specifically, this Court considered how the 

statewide orders, and the local emergency orders in Montgomery County,

affected a defendant’s motion to dismiss for Rule 600 purposes. We held:

____________________________________________

2 See In re Gen. Statewide Judicial Emergency, 659 Pa. 27, 230 A.3d 

1015 (2020). The Supreme Court also authorized president judges of judicial 

districts to declare judicial emergencies and suspend Rule 600 on March 16, 

2020. See In re General Statewide Judicial Emergency, 658 Pa. 426, 

228 A.3d 1281 (2020). COVID-19 related court orders are available at: 

https://www.pacourts.us/ujs-coronavirus-information. 
J-S23038-23

- 6 -

If an order unambiguously suspends Rule 600 

without qualification, then the period of the 

suspension is added to the run date without 

considering the Commonwealth’s diligence.

[Commonwealth v. Carl, 276 A.3d 743, 751 (Pa.Super. 

2022)]. Alternatively, if an order characterizes a delay as a 

court postponement, then that period is only excluded if the 

trial court determines after a hearing that the 

Commonwealth exercised due diligence through the life of 

the case. [Commonwealth v. Harth, ___ Pa. ___, 252 

A.3d 600 (2021)].

Lear, supra at 719 (emphasis added).

In Malone, supra, this Court applied the holding in Lear to the orders 

issued by the President Judge of Philadelphia County that suspended Rule 600 

from March 17, 2020 until October 1, 2021:

The first such order, Administrative Order No. 9 of 2020, 

issued on March 17, 2020, declared a judicial emergency in 

the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania from March 17, 

2020 to April 1, 2020, and unambiguously provided: 

“Additionally, the operation of Rule of Criminal Procedure 

600 shall be suspended in the First Judicial District 

during the period of the local judicial emergency.”

Order, 3/17/20. On April 1, 2020, Philadelphia County 

extended the March 17, 2020 emergency declaration until 

May 1, 2020, and again stated that “[t]he operation of Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 600 shall be suspended in the 

First Judicial District during the period of local judicial 

emergency.” Order, 4/1/20. On April 22, 2020, 

Philadelphia County extended Administrative Order No. 9 of 

2020 from May 1, 2020 “through the close of business on 

May 29, 2020.” Order, 4/22/20. Following a request by 

Philadelphia County for an extension of the judicial 

emergency, our Supreme Court issued an order stating: 

“[W]e grant the President Judge’s request to continue 

suspending Rules of Criminal Procedure 600 and 

1013...through August 31, 2021.” Order, No. 21 EM 2020, 

7/2/21. Philadelphia County, on August 20, 2021, again 

requested that our Supreme Court suspend Rule 600, after 

which the Supreme Court issued an order stating, “The 
J-S23038-23

- 7 -

President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of 

Philadelphia County is authorized to suspend Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 600...through October 1, 2021.” Order, 

No. 21 EM 2020, 8/23/21. Accordingly, Rule 600 was 

unambiguously suspended in Philadelphia County 

from March 17, 2020 through October 1, 2021[.]

Malone, supra at 1250-51 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). Thus, the 

Malone Court held that because Rule 600 was unambiguously suspended 

from March 17, 2020 through October 1, 2021, “that time period is to be 

added to the run date without considering the Commonwealth’s due 

diligence.” Id. at 1251 (citing Lear, supra at 720).

Instantly, the trial court relied on Harth, supra and considered whether 

the Commonwealth had met its obligation to act with due diligence throughout 

the life of the case. Specifically, the trial court recognized that 550 days had 

elapsed between the filing of the complaint and the Rule 600 hearing. Of this 

time, the court found that only 147 days were excludable.3 

Nevertheless, the trial court erred in its calculation by not excluding the 

days where Rule 600 was unambiguously suspended by statewide and local 

judicial orders. Appellee’s case fell under the jurisdiction of the First Judicial 

District in Philadelphia, where Rule 600 was unambiguously suspended from 

____________________________________________

3 The court found that the 98 days from October 5, 2021 to January 11, 2022 

were excludable because of a court continuance. The court also found that 31

days from January 11, 2022 through February 11, 2022 were excludable 

because a police witness for the Commonwealth was sick. The court further 

found that the 18 days from February 11, 2022 to March 1, 2022 were 

excludable based on a defense continuance. 
J-S23038-23

- 8 -

March 17, 2020 through October 1, 2021. See Malone, supra. Accordingly, 

all days that fell within that time were to be added to the run date without 

considering the Commonwealth’s due diligence during that time. See id. at 

1252; Lear, supra at 720.

Here, the Commonwealth filed its criminal complaint against Appellee 

on February 25, 2021, while Rule 600 was unambiguously suspended. 

Appellee filed his motion to dismiss on August 26, 2022, and the trial court 

granted the motion and dismissed the charges against Appellee on August 29, 

2022. As of August 29, 2022, only 332 days had elapsed since the October 

1, 2021 expiration of the Rule 600 suspension.4 Accordingly, Appellee’s Rule 

600 motion was premature, and the trial court erred in granting it. Therefore, 

we reverse the order granting Appellee’s Rule 600 motion and reinstate the 

charges.

Order reversed. Case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction is 

relinquished. 

____________________________________________

4 Moreover, when accounting for the other time the court decided was 

excludable that took place after expiration of the Rule 600 suspension, even 

fewer days had elapsed for Rule 600 purposes. 
J-S23038-23

- 9 -

Date: 10/26/2023