J-S03017-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellant

v.

FARID BROWN

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 3166 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Order September 8, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002004-2013

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED JUNE 21, 2018

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the order dismissing 

charges against Farid Brown due to the Commonwealth’s failure to comply 

with Rule 600 of our Rules of Criminal Procedure, the “Prompt Trial” rule. The 

Commonwealth claims the court erred in finding it had not completed 

discovery within the 365-day period required by the rule. After careful review, 

we affirm.

Our scope and standard of review on this issue are as follows.

Our standard of review relating to the application of Rule 600 is 

whether the trial court abused its discretion. Our scope of review 

is limited to the evidence on the record of the Rule 600 evidentiary 

hearing and the findings of the trial court. We must view the facts 

in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.

____________________________________________

 Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S03017-18

- 2 -

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

omitted).

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.

 

Commonwealth v. Hunt, 858 A.2d 1234, 1239 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc) 

(citation omitted; brackets in original). 

“[T]o obtain relief, a defendant must have a valid Rule 600 claim at the 

time he files his motion to dismiss the charges.” Commonwealth v. Hyland, 

875 A.2d 1175, 1189 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted). The first step in 

conducting a Rule 600 analysis is to calculate the “mechanical run date.” 

Commonwealth v. Lynn, 815 A.2d 1053, 1056 (Pa. Super. 2003). 

Rule 600 requires the Commonwealth to bring a defendant to trial within 

365 days of the day the parties were notified that the record has been 

remanded to the trial court after an appeal. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(A)(2)(e). 

There is no dispute that the relevant start date was April 1, 2015. The 

Commonwealth correctly notes, however, that 2016 was a leap year, causing 

the mechanical run date to be March 31, 2016.
J-S03017-18

- 3 -

“If the Commonwealth attempts to bring a defendant to trial beyond the 

365 day-period prescribed by Rule 600, and the defendant filed a Rule 600 

motion to dismiss, the court must assess whether there is excludable time 

and/or excusable delay.” Hunt, 858 A.2d at 1241 (citations omitted). The 

court must exclude from the time for commencement of trial any periods 

during which the defendant was unavailable, including any continuances 

requested by the defendant. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(C)(1), (2); Rule 600, 

Comment, Computation of Time. The amount of excludable time is added to 

the mechanical run date to arrive at an adjusted run date. See 

Commonwealth v. Ramos, 936 A.2d 1097, 1103 (Pa. 2007).

Even where a violation of Rule 600 has occurred, we must apply a due 

diligence analysis to assess whether the delay was excusable. See id. 

‘“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, 858 A.2d at 

1241 (citation omitted). Due diligence must be determined on a case-by-case 

basis. See id. “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.” Id., at 1241-1242 (citation and emphasis omitted). A delay 

that is excusable provides an extension to the adjusted run date. See Ramos, 

936 A.2d at 1103. Extensions added to the adjusted run date produce the final 

Rule 600 run date. See id. The trial court must dismiss the charges if the 
J-S03017-18

- 4 -

Commonwealth does not bring the defendant to trial on or before the final run 

date. See id.

A brief review of the procedural history of this case is helpful in 

understanding the parties’ arguments. In 2012, Brown was charged with 

several offenses based upon the discovery of a firearm near Brown’s 

passenger seat in a vehicle. The owner of the vehicle, Erica McKnight, was not 

in the vehicle at the time.

Brown filed a motion to suppress the firearm as the product of an illegal 

search. At the hearing, the Commonwealth sought to present evidence from 

a recording of a phone conversation between Brown and McKnight. See N.T., 

Suppression Hearing, 7/18/13, at 28. Brown’s co-defendant, the driver of the 

vehicle, objected, asking for a transcription or recording of the entire phone 

call. See id. The Commonwealth offered to play the entire recording in court, 

but the court declined the offer and sustained the objection. See id., at 28-

29. 

Ultimately, the trial court granted Brown’s motion to suppress. The 

Commonwealth appealed, arguing Brown either didn’t have a reasonable 

expectation of privacy in the vehicle or, if he did, he abandoned it. A panel of 

this Court, in a split decision, reversed the suppression order, concluding 

Brown had no privacy interest in the vehicle, or even if he did, he abandoned 

it. See Commonwealth v. Brown, No. 2370 EDA 2013, 2015 WL 7573022
J-S03017-18

- 5 -

(Pa. Super., filed February 13, 2015) (unpublished memorandum). The record 

was remanded to the trial court on April 1, 2015.

Trial was scheduled for March 21, 2016. After a jury was picked, the 

Commonwealth presented several motions in limine. One motion requested 

the admission of the fact that Brown was subsequently found with McKnight’s 

mobile phone in his possession. See N.T., Jury Trial, 3/22/16, at 9. Another 

motion sought to present evidence that paperwork1 belonging to Brown was 

found in McKnight’s vehicle nearly six months after his arrest. The 

Commonwealth intended to present this evidence to bolster its assertion that

Brown had a relationship with McKnight and therefore a possessory interest in 

McKnight’s vehicle in this case. See id., at 8.

The trial court asked the Commonwealth how it planned to establish 

Brown’s relationship with McKnight. The Commonwealth responded that it 

intended to utilize a recording from a prison call between Brown and McKnight. 

See id., at 15. At this point, Brown’s counsel, Gary Silver, notified the court 

that the Commonwealth had never produced this recording in discovery. See 

id., at 15-16.

____________________________________________

1 When the court asked the Commonwealth to identify the nature of this 

paperwork, the ADA responded, “a subpoena, probably.” Id., at 14. When the 

court asked, “[h]ave you ever seen it?,” the ADA responded, “[n]o.” Id. The 

ADA did not yet have possession of the paperwork—“it [is] coming over from 

City Hall[.]” Id., at 13.
J-S03017-18

- 6 -

The court asked the Commonwealth if the recording had ever been 

produced. “Yes, I turned over the entire tape at the – before the last motion.” 

See id., at 16. 

THE COURT: And these are tapes you’re going to play during 

the trial?

[ADA]: Well, depending on, kind of, how – what exactly 

we can agree to with regard to the relationship 

between parties, I was either going to or not 

going to. But, yes, I intend to – if there is no 

agreement that she is his girlfriend, yes, I would 

intend to play them.

MR. SILVER: With all due respect, Your Honor, I don’t have 

any documentation that shows that I received 

any tapes. I was given a transcript [of a] prison 

call, it’s a one-page document, in two years, and 

I’ve never received anything else. That’s not 

what [the ADA] is talking about now. This 

doesn’t have any of that information.

THE COURT: Do you have the receipt or something showing 

that he received the tapes in discovery and 

recordings?

[ADA]: I handed him the tapes, and I – they were 

played during a motion.

...

THE COURT: So where is there in the notes of testimony 

evidence that you turned over to defense 

counsel a copy of those telephone calls?

[ADA]: I gave it to them that day.

THE COURT: But where is that in the record? Mr. Silver says 

it didn’t happen.

MR. SILVER: I don’t have any tapes. I have a file, I have 

everything in there. This is a long case, I don’t 
J-S03017-18

- 7 -

have those tapes. And, clearly, they weren’t 

played that day.

...

I don’t have it, and I did not have it turned over 

to me .... And, Judge, I would like to just 

supplement that. I just looked over the exhibit 

list that we were given today, and, even today, 

this exhibit list doesn’t have the tape or CD on 

it. And it actually doesn’t even have the 

transcription that supposed was available on 

July 11th, 18th and –

[ADA]: You have it right there in your hand.

MR. SILVER: I understand that, but it’s not even on the 

exhibit list.

...

And may just direct this, the transcript that I 

have of the prison call is not the words and 

substance that she’s telling this Court, that’s not 

on this (indicating) transcript. That’s why I said, 

is there another transcript? I only have this 

(indicating) one.

THE COURT: It looks like 15 lines of transcript, and –

MR. SILVER: Yeah, 11 lines. Right. If this is it, I have this 

(indicating). I don’t have a tape. And if there’s 

some other transcript, I don’t have that. And 

that other transcript was what was talked to –

about on July 11th, I assume, because it’s not 

this transcript. Because this doesn’t say 

anything about her being a girlfriend. It doesn’t 

say anything about his mother, other than 

mother F’r.

Id., at 15-25. The court ruled the prison call recording inadmissible.
J-S03017-18

- 8 -

Other intended witnesses were discussed, and the Commonwealth was 

granted a brief recess. See id., at 34. After the recess, the Commonwealth 

argued the court’s preclusion of the recording was an inappropriate remedy. 

See id., at 37. The court allowed the Commonwealth to play the full fifteenminute recording for Brown in camera. See id., at 43. 

The Commonwealth played the recording for the court and Brown, and

stated that it intended “to introduce the relevant portions of the phone call” 

that identified “McKnight as the defendant’s girlfriend.” Id. After Brown asked 

the court what his options were after hearing the recording, the following 

exchange occurred:

THE COURT: Whatever you want to do. You just ask me – tell 

me what it is you want to do, and if the two of 

you can’t agree, I’ll resolve it. I’m trying to get 

this case to go to trial now that we have a jury, 

if that’s possible.

I’m bothered by the last minute turning over of 

the [recording.] I still roll up the windows on my 

car, what can I tell you. The lack of a transcript.

There’s no transcript. How do we resolve the 

issues of what’s being said on the tape? It’s not 

all that crystal clear? And how do we figure out 

what the DA’s describing as the relevant 

portions are? What she’s going to introduce?

[There’s] clearly irrelevant, prejudicial 

information on that recording, so how do you 

propose to resolve all this? And I ask you again, 

are you prepared to go to trial in this case, 

because it appears to me that you are not?

[ADA]: Yes. I would go through and stop and start 

relevant –
J-S03017-18

- 9 -

THE COURT: What are the relevant portions?

Id., at 44-45. The Commonwealth answered the court’s query by identifying 

several statements allegedly made by Brown in the recording. The 

Commonwealth also identified a statement allegedly made by McKnight where 

she referred to Brown as her boyfriend. See id., at 45.

At this point, the court queried the Commonwealth as to how it would 

handle the hearsay nature of McKnight’s alleged statement. See id. The 

Commonwealth did not directly answer the court’s question, and began to 

address other portions of the recording. See id., at 45-46.

The court noted that it was unfair to Brown to have to address the 

evidentiary issues associated with the recording on such short notice after a 

jury had already been picked. See id., at 46. The court decided it was safer 

to dismiss the jury before double jeopardy attached, and ordered the 

Commonwealth to “do all the things you should have done in preparation for 

today. Turn over whatever it is you expect to introduce at trial.” Id.

At the Commonwealth’s request, the court set May 13th as the date for 

a status conference to review whether the Commonwealth had provided a 

copy of the recording to Brown. See id., at 48-49. Brown renewed his 

argument that trial should commence immediately with the recording 

precluded. See id., at 49-50. The court dismissed the argument, noting “If 

we had gone to trial, it would have been precluded. But after listening to the 
J-S03017-18

- 10 -

tape, and listening to argument, we’re not going to trial. I’m going to give 

them an opportunity[.]” Id., at 50.

Brown filed his first Rule 600 motion on March 29th. After a hearing held 

on April 15th, the court dismissed the motion due to Brown’s failure to 

correctly identify the start date for Rule 600 calculations. See N.T., Hearing, 

4/15/16, at 13.

On May 12th, Brown filed his second Rule 600 motion. In it, he asserted 

408 non-excludable days had passed since the case record had been 

remanded from this Court, and the Commonwealth could not establish due 

diligence.

On June 9th, a hearing was held on Brown’s second Rule 600 motion. 

Brown asserted the Commonwealth had finally provided a copy of the 

recording on May 13th, and thus, the Commonwealth had not fulfilled its 

pretrial obligations until that date. See N.T., Hearing, 6/9/16, at 9. The 

Commonwealth reiterated its belief that the recording had been provided to 

Brown at the suppression hearing. See id., at 12.2 However, it conceded it 

had no documentation of producing the recording. See id.

The ADA asserted she had produced the recording at the suppression 

hearing. “In fact, I remember because Mr. Silver, as he often does, made me 

____________________________________________

2 The ADA conceded she did not have the case file with her at this hearing, 

nor had she prepared for the hearing, believing that it was merely a re-filing 

of Brown’s first Rule 600 motion. See id., at 10. 
J-S03017-18

- 11 -

so angry that I in fact threw the tape onto the desk.” Id., at 15. The court 

observed that if this had indeed happened, counsel for Brown’s co-defendant, 

who was at the suppression hearing, would be able to testify to this exchange. 

See id. The court concluded the Commonwealth’s argument required an 

evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual dispute. See id. The court scheduled 

the evidentiary hearing for July 18th.

On that day, the Commonwealth requested a continuance to September 

8th. It claimed this continuance was necessary to allow it to order the 

transcripts for the April 15, 2016 hearing, and it was not prepared to proceed 

without them. See N.T., Hearing, 7/18/16, at 5. When the court reporter 

indicated she had not yet received a request for the transcripts for the April 

15th hearing, the Commonwealth asserted it had asked the court’s secretary 

for the transcripts on the Thursday before the Monday hearing. See id., at 5-

6. The Commonwealth claimed it had mistakenly relied on the court’s 

secretary to order the transcript. See id., at 6. The court granted the 

Commonwealth’s request for a continuance.

On September 8th, a new ADA appeared for the Commonwealth. The 

court identified the issue of whether the Commonwealth had provided a copy 

of the recording to Brown at the suppression hearing as the only subject of 

the hearing. The Commonwealth responded that it now took the position “that 

an evidentiary hearing is not necessary to determine whether or not [the prior 

ADA] had passed the tapes or not.” N.T., Hearing, 9/8/16, at 12. “[I]t’s [the 
J-S03017-18

- 12 -

Commonwealth’s] position that the Commonwealth was never required to 

actually pass a copy of the recording[.]” Id., at 13.

After hearing the Commonwealth’s arguments, the court granted 

Brown’s second Rule 600 motion. The court found the Commonwealth had 

failed to establish due diligence in providing the recordings to Brown. The 

Commonwealth subsequently filed this timely appeal.

At the outset of our legal analysis, we note the Commonwealth does not 

dispute that the Rule 600 mechanical run date had passed prior to May 13, 

2016. Rather, the Commonwealth’s arguments center on its belief that the 

trial court misapplied the discovery rules in holding the Commonwealth had 

not established due diligence. 

We therefore turn to Rule 573 of our Rules of Criminal Procedure, which 

governs discovery in criminal cases. Specifically, the rule provides, in relevant 

part, the following:

(B) Disclosure by the Commonwealth.

(1) Mandatory. In all court cases, on request by the 

defendant, and subject to any protective order which the 

Commonwealth might obtain under this rule, the 

Commonwealth shall disclose to the defendant’s attorney all 

of the following requested items or information, provided 

they are material to the instant case. The Commonwealth 

shall, when applicable, permit the defendant’s attorney to 

inspect and copy or photograph such items.

(g) the transcripts and recordings of any electronic 

surveillance, and the authority by which the said 

transcripts and recordings were obtained.

...
J-S03017-18

- 13 -

(D) Continuing Duty to Disclose. If, prior to or during trial, either 

party discovers additional evidence or material previously 

requested or ordered to be disclosed by it, which is subject to 

discovery or inspection under this rule, ... such party shall 

promptly notify the opposing party or the court of the additional 

evidence[.]

Pa.R.Crim.P. 573(B)(1)(g), (D) (emphasis supplied). “[Q]uestions involving 

discovery in criminal cases lie within the discretion of the trial court and that 

court’s decision will not be reversed” an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth 

v. Rucci, 670 A.2d 1129, 1140 (Pa. 1996) (citations omitted).

The Commonwealth first argues it was not required to disclose the 

existence of the recording at any time as Brown never specifically requested 

it. See Appellant’s Brief, at 11. The Commonwealth highlights Brown’s failure 

to request discovery in his written omnibus pre-trial motion and his failure to 

object to assertions made by the substituted ADA at the September 8, 2016 

hearing. However, our review of the law and the record does not comport with 

the Commonwealth’s summary.

It is true, under the rule, that the Commonwealth’s obligation to provide 

even mandatory discovery is only triggered by a defense request for 

discovery. However, Rule 573 does not require a written discovery request. 

Rather, it requires the parties pursue informal discovery before seeking an 

order compelling discovery. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 573(A). Thus, the fact that 

Brown did not seek an order compelling discovery from the Commonwealth is 

not conclusive proof that he never requested discovery. 
J-S03017-18

- 14 -

Indeed, the record reveals that informal discovery occurred. A court 

summary from March 6, 2013, indicates discovery was incomplete, as 

“Ballistics” were “Missing.” Furthermore, it is clear the initial ADA understood 

Brown had requested the recording, as she adamantly asserted she had 

provided him with a copy at the suppression hearing.3 We therefore conclude 

the Commonwealth’s first issue on appeal merits no relief.

Next, the Commonwealth argues it was not required to provide a copy 

of the recording to Brown. The Commonwealth asserts to this Court that it 

was merely required to disclose the existence of the recording to Brown. It 

contends this disclosure requirement was satisfied at the suppression hearing 

when it first sought to introduce a portion of the recording.

This argument fails as a matter of law. Rule 573 requires more than 

mere disclosure of a recording in the Commonwealth’s possession; it also 

requires the Commonwealth to permit the defendant to copy the recording. 

See Pa.R.Crim.P. 573(B)(1)(g). The Commonwealth does not argue, nor does 

it identify, any evidence in the record capable of supporting such an argument, 

that it provided Brown an opportunity to copy the recording prior to May 13, 

2016.

____________________________________________

3 We note, without further comment, that it was the substitute ADA who 

forcefully advanced the argument that discovery was never requested—

despite her acknowledgment that she had no personal knowledge of the 

history of the case. The record does not disclose why the initial ADA was not 

present at the September 8, 2016 hearing to advance this argument.
J-S03017-18

- 15 -

Our recent en banc decision in Commonwealth v. Maldonodo, 173 

A.3d 769 (Pa. Super. 2017), is not to the contrary. While Maldonodo holds 

that the Commonwealth’s discovery obligations are satisfied when the defense 

has “access” to a recording in the Commonwealth’s possession, it also notes 

this “access” must include the ability to copy. Id., at 782. Furthermore, 

Maldonodo explicitly refutes the Commonwealth’s assertion that it had no 

duty to produce the recording in its possession since the defense had “equal 

access” to the prison records. See id., at n.9. Thus, the Commonwealth’s 

argument that mere disclosure of the existence of the recording, once it was 

in the Commonwealth’s possession, was sufficient under Rule 573 is 

unavailing.

As the Commonwealth has failed to establish a right to relief, we affirm 

the order dismissing the charges.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/21/18
J-S03017-18

- 16 -