Commonwealth v. Muhammad

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed an order dismissing criminal charges against Shafiq Muhammad under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600. The court held that Rule 600 requires a written dismissal motion and that the general exception for oral motions in Rule 575 does not override Rule 600’s specific requirement.

Holdings

1. A motion for dismissal under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600 must be made in writing; an oral Rule 600 motion that was never formally filed does not comply with the rule.
2. The specific written-motion requirement in Rule 600 prevails over the general provision in Rule 575(a)(1) permitting oral motions in open court during a trial or hearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by entertaining and granting an oral Rule 600 motion when Rule 600 requires a written motion served on the Commonwealth.
2. Whether the general exception for oral motions under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 575(a)(1) overrides the specific written-motion requirement in Rule 600.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded