Com. v. Darwin, B.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: November 26, 2025
• Docket: 1501 WDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A29001-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : BRANDON DARWIN : : Appellant : No. 1501 WDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 25, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0002372-2024

BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: NOVEMBER 26, 2025

Appellant, Brandon Darwin, appeals from the November 25, 2024

judgment of sentence entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas

in which the trial court found Appellant guilty of a summary traffic offense1

and imposed a $25 fine. Appellant challenges the denial of his motion to

dismiss filed pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 (“Rule 600”). After careful review,

we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand to the trial court to discharge

Appellant due to a violation of Rule 600.

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. On February

19, 2023, following a traffic stop of Appellant, the Commonwealth filed a

complaint (“First Complaint”). On August 2, 2023, the trial court held a

preliminary hearing and at the conclusion of the hearing, the judge dismissed

____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S. § 3301 (“Driving on Right Side of Roadway”). J-A29001-25

several counts. In response to the trial court’s ruling, the Commonwealth

withdrew the First Complaint.

On December 6, 2023, the Commonwealth refiled the complaint

(“Second Complaint”).2 On April 4, 2024, the trial court held the preliminary

hearing and held all charges for court except for Possession of a Firearm

Without a License, which the Commonwealth withdrew because Appellant did

have a firearms license at the time of his arrest.

On June 11, 2024, Appellant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule

600, arguing that more than 365 days had elapsed since the filing of the First

Complaint and, because the Commonwealth had failed to act with due

diligence, it could not benefit from the filing date of the Second Complaint.

On June 24, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the Rule 600 motion.

At the hearing, the Assistant District Attorney (“ADA”) informed the court that

the Commonwealth had dismissed the First Complaint because “the firearm

charge was dismissed” by the magistrate judge. N.T. Hr’g, 6/24/24, at 4. The

ADA told the court that the police determined that charges should be re-filed

after they obtained and reviewed cell phone dump evidence. Appellant then

argued that the Commonwealth had not presented any witnesses or ____________________________________________

2 The Commonwealth charged Appellant with Possession of a Firearm with Altered Manufacturer’s Number, Possession of a Firearm Without a License, Receiving Stolen Property (Firearm), Tampering with Physical Evidence, two counts of Possession of a Controlled Substance (Cocaine and Marijuana), and one count of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6110.2, 6106(a)(1), 3925(a), 4910(1), and 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(16), (a)(32), respectively. The Commonwealth also charged Appellant with five summary driving offenses.

-2- J-A29001-25

documents and, thus, had not met its burden of proof. At the conclusion of

the hearing, the trial court denied Appellant’s motion.

The case proceeded to jury trial on November 21, 2024, and the jury

acquitted Appellant of all charges. The trial court found Appellant guilty of

one summary vehicle code violation and imposed a $25 fine.

This timely appeal followed. Appellant and the trial court complied with

Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant raises the following issue for our review: “Did the trial court

abuse its discretion when it denied the [m]otion to [d]ismiss [p]ursuant to

Rule 600 [] where the Commonwealth presented no evidence that it acted

with due diligence in bringing [Appellant] to trial within the Rule 600 time

period?” Appellant’s Br. at 4.

We review the denial of a Rule 600 motion for an abuse of discretion.

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

Thompson, 93 A.3d 478, 486 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). Rule 600

requires the Commonwealth to bring a defendant to trial within 365 days of

the filing of the criminal complaint. Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(A)(2)(a); see also

Commonwealth v. Lear, 325 A.3d 552, 560 (Pa. 2024).

The comment to Rule 600 states that where the Commonwealth has

withdrawn a first complaint and then filed a second, the date of the second

complaint is controlling when “[1] the withdrawal and re-filing of charges are

-3- J-A29001-25

necessitated by factors beyond [the Commonwealth’s] control, [2] the

Commonwealth has exercised due diligence, and [3] the refiling is not an

attempt to circumvent the time limitation of Rule 600.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 600,

Comment. “[I]t is the Commonwealth’s burden to demonstrate due diligence

by a preponderance of the evidence[.]” Commonwealth v. Womack, 315

A.3d 1229, 1239 (Pa. 2024).

Appellant argues that the controlling date for Rule 600 purposes is the

date the Commonwealth filed the First Complaint because “[a]t the Rule 600

motion hearing, the Commonwealth presented no evidence that it acted with

due diligence.” Appellant’s Br. at 19. The Commonwealth has admitted that

“the record in the instant matter indicates that the Commonwealth presented

no evidence that it had acted [with due diligence]” and, thus, “the trial court’s

ruling on [Appellant’s] Rule 600 motion cannot stand.” Commonwealth’s Br.

at 13.

Upon review of the record, we agree with Appellant and the

Commonwealth that, because the Commonwealth failed to provide evidence

to sustain its burden of proof, the trial court abused its discretion in denying

the Rule 600 motion. As such, we vacate the judgment of sentence and

remand this matter to the trial court to discharge Appellant.

Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction

relinquished.

-4- J-A29001-25

DATE: 11/26/2025

-5-