Court Opinion

ID: 9929475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 18:10:02.819089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:23:26.806406
License: Public Domain

J-S39008-23

 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                   Appellant           :
                                       :
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 WARREN JAMES MAYO, JR.                :   No. 170 MDA 2023

             Appeal from the Order Entered January 25, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-22-CR-0001909-2021

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                   Appellant           :
                                       :
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 WARREN JAMES MAYO JR.                 :   No. 171 MDA 2023

             Appeal from the Order Entered January 25, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-22-CR-0001910-2021

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                   Appellant           :
                                       :
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 WARREN JAMES MAYO JR.                 :   No. 172 MDA 2023

             Appeal from the Order Entered January 25, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-22-CR-0001911-2021

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
J-S39008-23

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:                            FILED: FEBRUARY 2, 2024

       The Commonwealth appeals from the trial court’s January 25, 2023

order first granting the Motion to Reconsider (“Motion for Reconsideration”)

and then the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 (“Rule 600

Motion”) that Appellee Warren James Mayo, Jr. filed.           The Commonwealth

challenges the trial court’s jurisdiction to reconsider its initial denial of the Rule

600 Motion as well as the subsequent grant of the Rule 600 Motion. After

careful review, we vacate the trial court’s grant of the Rule 600 Motion and

remand for reinstatement of the charges.

                                               A.

       As a result of allegations that Appellee strangled and threatened his

former girlfriend and, in a separate incident, stabbed her eight times and

subsequently fled from police officers, the Commonwealth filed three criminal

complaints against Appellee in March 2021: on March 7, 2021, at Docket

Number CP-22-CR-0001911-2021 (“1911-2021”), on March 25, 2021, at CP-

22-CR-0001910-2021 (“1910-2021”), and on March 26, 2021, at CP-22-CR-

0001909-2021 (“1909-2021”).1 On December 2, 2022, Appellee filed a Rule

600 Motion in all three cases.
____________________________________________

1 The record reflects that the docket numbers for the charged offenses were

assigned in reverse chronological order for some unknown reason. Thus, for
the complaint filed on March 7, 2021, which was docketed at 1911-2021, the
Commonwealth charged Appellant with Strangulation, Terroristic Threats,
Simple Assault, and Harassment. At Docket No. 1910-21, the Commonwealth
charged Appellant on March 25, 2021, with Criminal Attempt-Homicide and
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -2-
J-S39008-23

       On December 7, 2022, the trial court held a hearing on the Rule 600

Motion and on December 13, 2022, denied it. The court then scheduled the

cases for jury selection for the week of January 23, 2023.2 On January 18,

2023, Appellee, however, filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the denial of

his Rule 600 motion and on January 23, 2023, the Commonwealth filed a

written objection. On January 25, 2023, the trial court granted Appellee’s

Motion for Reconsideration, vacating the earlier denial of the Rule 600 Motion.

The trial court then granted the Rule 600 Motion and dismissed all charges,

finding that the Commonwealth had violated Rule 600 by failing to bring

Appellee to trial by the adjusted run date.

                                               B.

       The Commonwealth filed a timely Notice of Appeal. Although the trial

court did not order the Commonwealth to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement,

it filed an Opinion pursuant to Rule 1925(a).

       The Commonwealth raises the following issues for our review:

       Whether the trial court erred in granting Appellee’s [M]otion to
       [R]econsider and dismissing all charges under P[a].R.Crim.P. 600
       where:

____________________________________________

Aggravated Assault. At No. 1909-2021, the Commonwealth charged Appellee
on March 26, 2021, with Aggravated Assault, Fleeing or Attempting to Elude
a Police Officer, Accidents Involving Damage to Attended Vehicles or Property,
and Driving While Operating Privilege is Suspended or Revoked.

2 On January 9, 2023, the Commonwealth filed a Motion for Joinder on cases

1909-2021 and 1910-2021. The court heard argument on the Motion for
Joinder on January 11, 2023 and eventually granted it. This issue is not before
us on this appeal.

                                           -3-
J-S39008-23

         a. It did not have jurisdiction to reconsider its previous, final
         order dismissing the motion;

         b. It did not grant [the Commonwealth] a hearing or a
         meaningful opportunity to address the motion for
         reconsideration;

         c. The continuance time from 2021 was already waived by
         Appellee, Appellee never filed a motion to compel discovery,
         and such a result would contravene public policy;

         d. The time from the status conference regarding Appellee’s
         case assignments to the status conference date with the
         successor judge should run against Appellee where the
         status conference was convened at Appellee’s request; and

         e. The Commonwealth acted with due diligence in bringing
         the case to trial promptly[.]

Commonwealth’s Br. at 7 (reordered for ease of disposition).

                                        C.

      The Commonwealth first asserts that, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505,

the trial court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider its order dismissing the Rule

600 Motion thirty-six days after entering the order. Id. at 15-17. In support,

it maintains that “[t]he outcome of [a Rule 600] motion would have a

dispositive effect, as it would end the [Commonwealth’s] ability to prosecute

the defendant on these specific charges[,]” so Rule 600 motions are subject

to Section 5505’s 30-day time limit. Id. at 17.

      The trial court, on the other hand, determined that it had jurisdiction to

grant Appellee’s Motion for Reconsideration even after 30 days because its

order denying Appellee’s Rule 600 motion was not a final order. Trial Ct. Op.,

3/30/23, at 3. We agree.

      Section 5505, entitled “Modification of Orders,” provides in full:

                                       -4-
J-S39008-23

      Except as otherwise provided or prescribed by law, a court upon
      notice to the parties may modify or rescind any order within 30
      days after its entry, notwithstanding the prior termination of any
      term of court, if no appeal from such order has been taken or
      allowed.

42 Pa.C.S. § 5505. However, the 30-day time limit only applies to final orders,

not interlocutory orders. Commonwealth v. James, 69 A.3d 180, 186 (Pa.

2013); Commonwealth v. Nicodemus, 636 A.2d 1118, 1120 (Pa. Super.

1993). Generally, a final order “ends the litigation or disposes of the entire

case.” Nicodemus, 636 A.2d at 1120. Whether an order is final is a “judicial

conclusion which can be reached only after an examination of its

ramifications.” Id.

      Here, the trial court’s initial denial of the Rule 600 Motion was not a final

order because it did not terminate the cases. Rather, by denying the motion,

the case proceeded to trial. In other words, an order granting a Rule 600

motion is a final order, but an order denying a Rule 600 motion is interlocutory

and not final. See Commonwealth v. Myers, 322 A.2d 131, 132-33 (Pa.

1974) (quashing defendant’s appeal from a denial of a speedy trial motion

because denial was an interlocutory order not appealable until after

sentencing). Therefore, Section 5505’s 30-day restriction for reconsideration

does not apply to reconsideration of an order denying a Rule 600 motion. The

court retained jurisdiction and, thus, had the authority to rule on Appellee’s

                                      -5-
J-S39008-23

motion     for   reconsideration.         Accordingly,   we   conclude   that   the

Commonwealth’s first claim lacks merit.3

                                               D.

       The Commonwealth’s remaining arguments challenge the trial court’s

determination that the Commonwealth violated Rule 600 by failing to bring

Appellee to trial by the adjusted run date. In this case, the trial court found

that the adjusted run date was October 1, 2022, and since the case was

scheduled for trial for January 23, 2023, the Commonwealth failed to bring

Appellee to trial by the adjusted run date and, thus, violated Rule 600.

       We generally review the trial court’s disposition of a Rule 600 motion for

an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Harth, 252 A.3d 600, 614 n.13

(Pa. 2021). “An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but if

____________________________________________

3 The Commonwealth also argues that the trial court erred by failing to give it

“a meaningful opportunity” to address Appellee’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Commonwealth’s Br. at 13. The Commonwealth maintains that, because it
objected when Appellee made his motion, it “effectively preserv[ed] its chance
to respond.” Id. at 14. We disagree. The Commonwealth’s Objection to
[Appellee’s] Motion for Reconsideration asserted only that the court did not
have jurisdiction to modify its order pursuant to Rule 5505 which, as noted
above, is unsupported by case law. The Commonwealth cites no legal
authority to support its assertion that its Objection preserved “its chance to
respond” to the Motion for Reconsideration. Accordingly, this issue is waived.
See Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (a), (c) (briefing requirements); Pa.R.A.P. 2101
(explaining that substantial briefing defects may result in dismissal of appeal);
Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007) (holding
that where an appellant fails to develop an argument sufficiently for our
review, we may dismiss the appeal or find that issue waived). See also
Commonwealth v. B.D.G., 959 A.2d 362, 371–72 (Pa. Super. 2008) (finding
issue waived where appellant failed to cite any pertinent authority to support
his argument).

                                           -6-
J-S39008-23

in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment

exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias

or ill-will . . . discretion is abused.” Commonwealth v. Burno, 154 A.3d

764, 793 (Pa. 2017) (citation omitted). “Our scope of review is limited to the

record evidence from the speedy trial hearing and the findings of the lower

court, reviewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.”         Id.

(citation omitted).

       Rule 600 requires that trial “shall commence within 365 days from the

date on which the complaint is filed.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(A)(2)(a). Known as

the mechanical run date, that date may be extended under certain

circumstances.      Commonwealth v. Wendel, 165 A.3d 952, 956–57 (Pa.

Super. 2017).4 When a defendant seeks dismissal based on a violation of Rule

600, the court first establishes the mechanical run date, then determines

whether any periods of delay are excludable and if so, it extends the

mechanical run date to account for the periods of excludable delay to, thus,

arrive at the adjusted run date. Rule 600(C). The Commonwealth must bring

a defendant to trial by the adjusted run date. Commonwealth v. Roles, 116

A.3d 122, 125 (Pa. Super. 2015).

       When a defendant requests a continuance and the court grants it, the

delay caused by the continuance request is not attributable to the

Commonwealth and the trial court extends the adjusted run date to account
____________________________________________

4 See generally Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 521-22 (1972); U.S.
Const. amend. VI.

                                           -7-
J-S39008-23

for the period of delay. Commonwealth v. Armstrong, 74 A.3d 228, 237

(Pa. Super. 2013). Similarly, if a defendant “expressly waived his rights under

Rule 600,” the period of delay is excludable.     Commonwealth v. Brown,

875 A.2d 1128, 1134 (Pa. Super. 2005). “There are no formal requirements

for a valid waiver of Rule 600; so long as there is an indication, on the record,

that the waiver is the informed and voluntary decision of the defendant, it will

be accorded prima facie validity.” Id. at 1135 (citations omitted).

      In addition, judicial delays, which are delays caused by the court’s

schedule,   are   excludable   and   thus,   extend   the   adjusted   run   date.

Commonwealth v. Wiggins, 248 A.3d 1285, 1289 (Pa. Super. 2021).

Where judicial delay is at issue, however, the court must determine that the

Commonwealth acted with “due diligence” in bringing the defendant to trial

before extending the adjusted run date to account for the judicial delay.

Harth, 252 A.3d at 617-18.

      Finally, delays caused by events out of the control of the Commonwealth

are not generally attributable to the Commonwealth and the trial court may

extend the adjusted run date to account for delays arising from events outside

of the control of the Commonwealth. Wiggins, 248 A.3d at 1289.

                                       *

      Here, the mechanical run dates for cases 1909-2021, 1910-2021, and

1911-2021 were one year after the Commonwealth filed each case—March 26,

March 25, and March 7, 2022, respectively. Trial Ct. Op. at 6, 10-11. After

determining the amount of excludable time, the trial court calculated the

                                      -8-
J-S39008-23

adjusted run date in all three cases to be October 1, 2022. Id. Appellee filed

the Rule 600 Motion on December 2, 2022. The trial court concluded that

since the adjusted run date of October 1, 2022, had passed when Appellee

filed the Rule 600 Motion on December 2, 2022, and the Commonwealth had

not yet brought Appellee to trial, the Commonwealth violated Rule 600 and

the trial court dismissed the charges. We find, however, that the trial court

erred in limiting the adjusted run date to October 1, 2022.

                                        *

        The Commonwealth challenges the trial court’s determination that the

following four periods of delay were attributable to the Commonwealth and

did not extend the adjusted run date:

        1) July 13 to September 28, 2021;

        2) November 4 to December 16, 2021;

        3) December 16, 2021, to August 4, 2022; and

        4) August 4 to October 27, 2022.

We need to address only the first two time periods of delay because we find

that those periods of delay were not attributable to the Commonwealth and,

thus, the trial court erred in not extending the adjusted run date to include

those periods of delay. If the trial court had done so, the adjusted run date

would have been the same date as the scheduled trial date of January 23,

2023.

                                     -9-
J-S39008-23

       July 13, 2021, to September 28, 2021

       In its Rule 1925(a) Opinion, the trial court explained that it refused to

extend the adjusted run date to account for this period of delay because the

Commonwealth had failed to pass discovery to Appellee until 7 days before

the end of this time period.5 In particular, the trial court bifurcated this period

into the time before the Commonwealth provided discovery and the period

after the Commonwealth provided discovery. Trial Ct. Op. at 6-7.

       The trial court, however, ignores the fact that this delay was caused by

Appellee’s request for a continuance on July 13 and that when he made the

request, he explicitly waived his Rule 600 rights. N.T. Hr’g, 12/7/2022, at 28.

Since it was Appellee who requested the continuance and his counsel

acknowledged the waiver at the Rule 600 hearing, the delay was attributable

to Appellee and the trial court erred in not extending the adjusted run date to

include this period of delay. Commonwealth v. Barbour, 189 A.3d 944, 958

(Pa. 2018).

       Additionally, we note that we have found no legal authority to support

the trial court’s proposition that when it is a defendant who requests a

continuance,     the   time    is   attributable   to   the   Commonwealth   if   the

Commonwealth has not passed discovery. Rather, the case law is clear that

when a defendant requests a continuance, the delay caused by the

____________________________________________

5 According to the trial court, the discovery packet included “the criminal
information, police report, prior criminal record, PennDOT certified driving
record, and sentencing guidelines.” Trial Ct. Op. at 7.

                                          - 10 -
J-S39008-23

continuance request is not attributable to the Commonwealth and the adjusted

run date must be extended accordingly. Armstrong, 74 A.3d at 237. The

trial court thus erred in attributing the delay to the Commonwealth and failing

to increase the adjusted run date by 70 days.

       November 4, 2021, to December 16, 2021

       The Commonwealth next asserts that the trial court abused its discretion

when it attributed the delay from November 4, 2021, to December 16, 2021,

to the Commonwealth.          Commonwealth’s Br. at 19.            The Commonwealth

argues that it was Appellee’s counsel who requested the status conference

that the court scheduled for December 16 as a result of her reassignment to

another courtroom and that time period is, therefore, excludable. Id. at 19,

21.

       The    trial   court   rejected    this     argument   by    focusing   on   the

Commonwealth’s actions taken after the Public Defender's Office assigned

Attorney Ruby to a new courtroom, which ultimately necessitated a status

conference to determine which judge would hear the case.6 In support of its

conclusion that this period was attributable to the Commonwealth, the trial

court explained:

____________________________________________

6 “In Dauphin County, there are four [] criminal judges. . . .[E]ach criminal

judge is assigned a designated “team” of district attorneys and public
defenders. When one of the “team members” switches courtrooms, some of
the cases remain in the original criminal courtroom and some move to the
new criminal courtroom. When there is a dispute, Judge Evans is tasked with
determining which criminal judge a case should be assigned to.” Trial Ct.
Op.at 7, n.16.

                                          - 11 -
J-S39008-23

      Toward the end of 2021, Appellee’s counsel. . .was moved from
      this Court’s trial team to the Honorable Judge Edward M. Marsico,
      Jr.’s trial team. Therefore, [Judge] Evans, as criminal calendar
      judge, scheduled a status conference to determine which
      courtroom Attorney Ruby’s cases would be assigned to. (N.T.
      12/7/22 at 8). At the status conference, some cases were moved
      to Judge Marsico and some stayed with this Court by agreement.
      Attorney Ruby requested that these cases be reassigned to Judge
      Marsico, and the Commonwealth objected.

      Due to the Commonwealth’s objection, Judge Evans scheduled
      a status conference for December 16, 2021, with [Judge]
      Lewis as he was transitioning to senior judge at the time
      and would have more availability in his schedule. (N.T. at
      35). Since the Commonwealth objected to moving the cases to
      Judge Marsico necessitating a status conference with Judge Lewis,
      this Court finds the Commonwealth failed to exercise due
      diligence. Therefore, the time between November 4, 2021,
      and December 16, 2021, was not excludable.

Trial Ct. Op. at 7-8 (emphasis added).

      We note as an initial matter that the Commonwealth indicated that it

was ready to proceed to trial in September 2021, several months before this

period of time. N.T. Hr’g at 33-34. The trial court, however, ignores this fact

and the fact that it was the Public Defender’s office who reassigned Appellee’s

counsel to a new courtroom. This reassignment implicated the issue of which

public defender would represent Appellee before which judge.               The

Commonwealth’s objection to moving the case is irrelevant because it is not

the Commonwealth who assigns cases to judges. These reassignment actions

are out of the control of the Commonwealth and, thus, the trial court erred in

attributing the time to the Commonwealth, especially in light of the fact that

the Commonwealth was ready for trial in September 2021. Wiggins, 248

                                    - 12 -
J-S39008-23

A.3d at 1289. Thus, the trial court erred in excluding this period of delay and

not extending the adjusted run date by these 42 days.7

                                               F.

       In conclusion, the trial court erred in not extending the adjusted run

date to include the 70 days in the time period of July 13, 2021 to September

21, 2021 and the 42 days in the time period from November 4, 2021 until

December 11, 2021. The adjusted run date, at minimum, was January 23,

2023, which is the date that the court had scheduled the trial. Therefore, the

trial court abused its discretion in granting the Rule 600 motion and dismissing

these cases.8 Accordingly, we vacate the Order granting the Rule 600 Motion

and remand for further proceedings.

       Order vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.

       Judge McCaffery did not participate in the consideration or decision of

this case.

____________________________________________

7 42 days from December 10, 2022, is Saturday, January 21, 2023.  Because
it is a Saturday, the adjusted run date is the next business day, Monday,
January 23, 2023.

8 As noted above, in light of our disposition, we need not address the
Commonwealth’s final claims, regarding the periods from December 16, 2021,
to August 4, 2022 and August 4 to October 27, 2022.

                                          - 13 -
J-S39008-23

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/2/2024

                           - 14 -