J-A28014- 11

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court

. 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 Ord er granting the oral Motion of Melanie Jaroma (“Jaroma”) for dis missal pursuant to Rule 600 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. On January 29, 2008, Jaroma was charged with receivin g stolen property, theft by failure to make the required disp osition 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 po stponements 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.J-A28014- 11

- 2 -

argument from both parties regard ing Jaroma’s Rule 600 Motion, and thereafter denied the Motion as premature. See N.T., 8/19/09, at 14. The case was subsequently scheduled for trial on April 1 2, 2010. On that date, Jaroma’s counsel orally moved for dismissal o f all charges pursuant to Rule 600. The trial court took the matte r under advisement, ordered the parties to file briefs on the issue, and se t the matter for oral argument. On April 23, 2010, the trial court heard argument from both parties regarding Jaroma’s oral Rule 600 Motio n, and thereafter granted the

Motion. The Commonwealth filed a timely appeal from the tri al court’s Order granting Jaroma’s oral Rule 600 Motion. This Court a ffirmed the trial court’s Order, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed an d 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 Super. 2012) (unpublished memorandum), reversed and remanded , 77 A.3d 633 (Pa. 2013).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: “Did the [trial] court err by granting [Jaroma’s] oral motion for discharge u nder Rule 600 where the [Pennsylvania] Supreme Court plainly requires a w ritten defense motion prior to granting any relief?” Brief for Appellant at 4.

The Commonwealth contends that a Rule 600 motion must be made in writing. Id . at 10. The Commonwealth asserts that because Jaroma’ s initialJ-A28014- 11

- 3 -

written Rule 600 Motion was denied, the trial court e rred in granting Jaroma’s subsequent oral Rule 600 Motion because it was n ot submitt 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 6 00 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 defen dant to serve a copy of the motion to dismiss upon the attorney for the Com monwealth. Id . at 1019; see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 cmt. The requirement that a copy o f 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. Here, Jaroma’s initial written Rule 600 Motion was de nied by the trial court on August 19, 2009 . Jaroma’s second Rule 600 Motion, orally presented to the trial court on Ap ril 12, 2010, was never reduced to written form, in violation of Rule 600. Accordingly, the tri al court erred by entertaining and granting it. Order reversed. Case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction relinquished.J-A28014- 11

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 9/26/2014