J-S21001-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : TOSHIA MARIE SHEARER : No. 1663 MDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered November 19, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0004617-2020
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED AUGUST 15, 2022
The Commonwealth appeals from the order granting the Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 600 filed by Appellee Toshia Marie Shearer. At issue
is whether a period of 57 days—from July 6, 2020, to August 31, 2020—is
excludable from the calculation of the mechanical run date of trial due to York
County’s COVID-19 judicial emergency closure orders. Pursuant to
Commonwealth v. Carl, 276 A.3d 743 (Pa. Super. 2022), we vacate and
remand for reinstatement of the case.
On July 6, 2020,1 the Commonwealth filed a criminal complaint against
Appellee charging her with, inter alia, Possession of Controlled Substances. ____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, the trial court refers to July 5, 2020, as the date Appellee was charged. However, the docket indicates the criminal (Footnote Continued Next Page) J-S21001-22
On July 7, 2020, the magisterial district court scheduled a preliminary hearing
for October 6, 2020. On October 6, 2020, the court held the matter for trial
and on October 29, 2020, Appellee waived her formal arraignment.
The docket indicates that nearly a year later, on September 27, 2021,
the court scheduled a status conference for October 8, 2021. On October 8,
2021, the court ordered the case to be placed on the trial list for the week of
November 8, 2021.
On October 8, 2021, Appellee filed her Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
Rule 600. The court held a hearing on the Rule 600 motion on November 16,
2021, where the parties agreed that 91 days was excludable due to a judicial
emergency COVID-19 shutdown from November 2020 to February 2021, but
disagreed as to whether the 57 days following Appellee’s arrest until August
31, 2020, when a local COVID emergency judicial declaration was in effect,
was time to be excluded for purposes of Rule 600 calculations. On November
19, 2021, the court granted Appellee’s motion and dismissed the case. The
Commonwealth timely appealed. Both the Commonwealth and the trial court
complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
In its sole issue raised for our review, the Commonwealth asserts that
the trial court erred in granting Appellee’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
600. Commonwealth’s Br. at 5. The Commonwealth argues that due to the
____________________________________________
complaint was filed with the magisterial district court on July 6, 2020. July 6, 2020, thus, began the running of the Rule 600 clock. Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(A)(2)(a). We have adjusted the arithmetic throughout our memorandum.
-2- J-S21001-22
COVID-19 pandemic emergency declaration entered by the President Judge of
the York County Court of Common Pleas on May 27, 2020, the period between
July 6, 2020, and August 31, 2020, should have been excluded from the
calculation of the trial’s run date because the York County judicial emergency
declaration extended the suspension of Rule 600 to August 31, 2020. See
Commonwealth’s Br. at 9.
We 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).
Rule 600 provides that trial must commence within 365 days of the filing of
the complaint. Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(A)(2)(a). “[P]eriods of delay at any stage of
the proceedings caused by the Commonwealth when the Commonwealth has
failed to exercise due diligence shall be included in the computation of the
time within which trial must commence. Any other periods of delay shall be
excluded from the computation.” Id. at (C)(1).
On March 18, 2020, our Supreme Court issued an emergency order in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic which, among other things, suspended
the application of Rule 600. The statewide judicial emergency and suspension
of Rule 600 was extended to and ended on June 1, 2020. See In re General
Statewide Judicial Emergency, 229 A.3d 229 (Pa. 2020); In re General
Statewide Judicial Emergency, 230 A.3d 1015 (Pa. 2020); In re General
Statewide Judicial Emergency, 234 A.3d 408 (Pa. 2020). However, the
Supreme Court allowed local judicial districts to extend their emergency
-3- J-S21001-22
orders beyond June 1, 2020, including the suspension of Rule 600 timeliness
requirements. The York County President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas
entered the following order on May 28, 2020:
Per the Supreme Court’s Order dated May 27, 202[0], authorizing President Judges to declare judicial emergencies in their judicial districts, I declare a judicial emergency in the 19th Judicial District through August 31, 2020. During the emergency the following shall apply:
(1) Limit in-person access and proceedings in order to safeguard the health and safety of court personnel, court users, and members of the public; (2) Suspend statewide rules that restrict, directly or indirectly, the use of advanced communication technologies; and (3) Suspend statewide rules pertaining to the rule-based right of criminal defendants to a prompt trial.
Any postponement caused by the judicial emergency shall be considered a court postponement and shall constitute excludable time for purposes of the application of Rule 600. [].
Declaration, entered May 28, 2020 (Adams, P.J.) (“See” citations omitted;
emphasis added). The court entered a subsequent judicial emergency order
suspending trials from November 30, 2020, to February 28, 2021.
In Commonwealth v. Carl, 276 A.3d 743 (Pa. Super. 2022), this Court
recently interpreted the plain language of the York County Declaration as
providing that, regardless of the procedural posture of the case leading up to
trial, the period of March 31, 2020, through August 31, 2020, is not to be
included in Rule 600 calculations.
Construing Subsection (3) in accordance with the plain meaning of its words, we find that it clearly and simply directs that rule- based, “prompt trial” time computations are suspended for the
-4- J-S21001-22
duration of the judicial emergency at hand. The intended effect on Rule 600 computations in criminal cases existing at that time is thus evident: such computations are to be held in abeyance and shall not include days transpiring during the effective time of the Declaration until the expiration of the declared emergency, at which time resumption or commencement of such computations may proceed.
Id. at 750.
Carl is dispositive here. The mechanical run date of Appellee’s trial was
July 6, 2021. When Appellee filed the Rule 600 motion on October 8, 2021,
460 days had passed since the filing of the complaint. In granting the Rule
600 motion, the trial court agreed with Appellee that the 57 days between
July 6, 2021, and August 31, 2021, was attributable to the normal progression
of the case and, thus, included in the mechanical run date. Pursuant to Carl,
however, the judicial emergency order in effect during that time period
suspended the application of Rule 600, rendering the challenged 57 days
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S21001-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : TOSHIA MARIE SHEARER : No. 1663 MDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered November 19, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0004617-2020
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED AUGUST 15, 2022
The Commonwealth appeals from the order granting the Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 600 filed by Appellee Toshia Marie Shearer. At issue
is whether a period of 57 days—from July 6, 2020, to August 31, 2020—is
excludable from the calculation of the mechanical run date of trial due to York
County’s COVID-19 judicial emergency closure orders. Pursuant to
Commonwealth v. Carl, 276 A.3d 743 (Pa. Super. 2022), we vacate and
remand for reinstatement of the case.
On July 6, 2020,1 the Commonwealth filed a criminal complaint against
Appellee charging her with, inter alia, Possession of Controlled Substances. ____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, the trial court refers to July 5, 2020, as the date Appellee was charged. However, the docket indicates the criminal (Footnote Continued Next Page) J-S21001-22
On July 7, 2020, the magisterial district court scheduled a preliminary hearing
for October 6, 2020. On October 6, 2020, the court held the matter for trial
and on October 29, 2020, Appellee waived her formal arraignment.
The docket indicates that nearly a year later, on September 27, 2021,
the court scheduled a status conference for October 8, 2021. On October 8,
2021, the court ordered the case to be placed on the trial list for the week of
November 8, 2021.
On October 8, 2021, Appellee filed her Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
Rule 600. The court held a hearing on the Rule 600 motion on November 16,
2021, where the parties agreed that 91 days was excludable due to a judicial
emergency COVID-19 shutdown from November 2020 to February 2021, but
disagreed as to whether the 57 days following Appellee’s arrest until August
31, 2020, when a local COVID emergency judicial declaration was in effect,
was time to be excluded for purposes of Rule 600 calculations. On November
19, 2021, the court granted Appellee’s motion and dismissed the case. The
Commonwealth timely appealed. Both the Commonwealth and the trial court
complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
In its sole issue raised for our review, the Commonwealth asserts that
the trial court erred in granting Appellee’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
600. Commonwealth’s Br. at 5. The Commonwealth argues that due to the
____________________________________________
complaint was filed with the magisterial district court on July 6, 2020. July 6, 2020, thus, began the running of the Rule 600 clock. Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(A)(2)(a). We have adjusted the arithmetic throughout our memorandum.
-2- J-S21001-22
COVID-19 pandemic emergency declaration entered by the President Judge of
the York County Court of Common Pleas on May 27, 2020, the period between
July 6, 2020, and August 31, 2020, should have been excluded from the
calculation of the trial’s run date because the York County judicial emergency
declaration extended the suspension of Rule 600 to August 31, 2020. See
Commonwealth’s Br. at 9.
We 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).
Rule 600 provides that trial must commence within 365 days of the filing of
the complaint. Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(A)(2)(a). “[P]eriods of delay at any stage of
the proceedings caused by the Commonwealth when the Commonwealth has
failed to exercise due diligence shall be included in the computation of the
time within which trial must commence. Any other periods of delay shall be
excluded from the computation.” Id. at (C)(1).
On March 18, 2020, our Supreme Court issued an emergency order in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic which, among other things, suspended
the application of Rule 600. The statewide judicial emergency and suspension
of Rule 600 was extended to and ended on June 1, 2020. See In re General
Statewide Judicial Emergency, 229 A.3d 229 (Pa. 2020); In re General
Statewide Judicial Emergency, 230 A.3d 1015 (Pa. 2020); In re General
Statewide Judicial Emergency, 234 A.3d 408 (Pa. 2020). However, the
Supreme Court allowed local judicial districts to extend their emergency
-3- J-S21001-22
orders beyond June 1, 2020, including the suspension of Rule 600 timeliness
requirements. The York County President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas
entered the following order on May 28, 2020:
Per the Supreme Court’s Order dated May 27, 202[0], authorizing President Judges to declare judicial emergencies in their judicial districts, I declare a judicial emergency in the 19th Judicial District through August 31, 2020. During the emergency the following shall apply:
(1) Limit in-person access and proceedings in order to safeguard the health and safety of court personnel, court users, and members of the public; (2) Suspend statewide rules that restrict, directly or indirectly, the use of advanced communication technologies; and (3) Suspend statewide rules pertaining to the rule-based right of criminal defendants to a prompt trial.
Any postponement caused by the judicial emergency shall be considered a court postponement and shall constitute excludable time for purposes of the application of Rule 600. [].
Declaration, entered May 28, 2020 (Adams, P.J.) (“See” citations omitted;
emphasis added). The court entered a subsequent judicial emergency order
suspending trials from November 30, 2020, to February 28, 2021.
In Commonwealth v. Carl, 276 A.3d 743 (Pa. Super. 2022), this Court
recently interpreted the plain language of the York County Declaration as
providing that, regardless of the procedural posture of the case leading up to
trial, the period of March 31, 2020, through August 31, 2020, is not to be
included in Rule 600 calculations.
Construing Subsection (3) in accordance with the plain meaning of its words, we find that it clearly and simply directs that rule- based, “prompt trial” time computations are suspended for the
-4- J-S21001-22
duration of the judicial emergency at hand. The intended effect on Rule 600 computations in criminal cases existing at that time is thus evident: such computations are to be held in abeyance and shall not include days transpiring during the effective time of the Declaration until the expiration of the declared emergency, at which time resumption or commencement of such computations may proceed.
Id. at 750.
Carl is dispositive here. The mechanical run date of Appellee’s trial was
July 6, 2021. When Appellee filed the Rule 600 motion on October 8, 2021,
460 days had passed since the filing of the complaint. In granting the Rule
600 motion, the trial court agreed with Appellee that the 57 days between
July 6, 2021, and August 31, 2021, was attributable to the normal progression
of the case and, thus, included in the mechanical run date. Pursuant to Carl,
however, the judicial emergency order in effect during that time period
suspended the application of Rule 600, rendering the challenged 57 days
excluded from the mechanical run date. Accordingly, when combined with the
91-day suspension attributable to the subsequent COVID-19 emergency
order, Appellee’s trial run date would have been adjusted by 148 days to
November 30, 2021. Accordingly, the court abused its discretion in granting
Appellee’s October 8, 2021 Rule 600 Motion to Dismiss.
We, thus, vacate the Order granting the Rule 600 motion and remand
for further proceedings.
Order vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
-5- J-S21001-22
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 08/15/2022
-6-