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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 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

the oral Motion of Melanie Jaroma (“Jaroma”) for dismissal 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 receiving stolen 

property, theft by failure to make the required disposition 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 postponements 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 regarding 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 12, 2010. On 

that date, Jaroma’s counsel orally moved for dismissal of all charges 

pursuant to Rule 600. The trial court took the matter under advisement, 

ordered the parties to file briefs on the issue, and set the matter for oral 

argument. On April 23, 2010, the trial court heard argument from both 

parties regarding Jaroma’s oral Rule 600 Motion, and thereafter granted the 

Motion. 

The Commonwealth filed a timely appeal from the trial court’s Order 

granting Jaroma’s oral Rule 600 Motion. This Court affirmed the trial court’s 

Order, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed and 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(unpublished memorandum), reversed and remanded, 77 A.3d 633 (Pa. 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 under Rule 600 where 

the [Pennsylvania] Supreme Court plainly requires a written 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 initial 
J-A28014-11

- 3 - 

written Rule 600 Motion was denied, the trial court erred in granting 

Jaroma’s subsequent oral Rule 600 Motion because it was not submitted 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 600 

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 defendant to serve a copy 

of the motion to dismiss upon the attorney for the Commonwealth. Id. at 

1019; see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 cmt. The requirement that a copy of 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 denied by the trial 

court on August 19, 2009. Jaroma’s second Rule 600 Motion, orally 

presented to the trial court on April 12, 2010, was never reduced to written 

form, in violation of Rule 600. Accordingly, the trial 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