Com. v. Miller, D. ( 2023 )

J-S12036-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
DEVIN MICHAEL MILLER :
:
Appellant : No. 1011 MDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 6, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-14-CR-0000726-2021
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., McCAFFERY, J., and COLINS, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY COLINS, J.: FILED: AUGUST 4, 2023
Appellant, Devin Michael Miller, appeals from the judgments of sentence
imposed by the Centre County Court of Common Pleas after a jury found him
guilty of driving under the influence (DUI) of a Schedule I controlled substance
as a fourth offense and false identification to a law enforcement officer, and
the lower court found him guilty of driving while operating privilege is
suspended or revoked (DUI related) as a third or subsequent violation, driving
while operating privilege is suspended or revoked (DUI related) with controlled
substance in blood as a third or subsequent violation, failing to wear protective
headgear while operating a motorcycle, careless driving, and failing to use a
traffic signal before initiating a turn.1 He challenges the denial of his pre-trial
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3802(d)(1)(i), 4914(a), 1543(b)(1)(iii), 1543(b)(1.1)(iii),
3525(b), 3714(a), and 3334(a), respectively.
J-S12036-23
motion to dismiss his case, alleging that the Commonwealth violated his right
to a speedy trial under the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions.
In its opinion filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), the trial court notes
that it “addressed the reasons for its decision regarding th[e speedy trial]
issue on the record at the April 4, 2022 [h]earing and therefore relies on said
[t]ranscript and respectfully requests the [o]rder [d]enying the [m]otion be
affirmed.”2 Trial Court Opinion, 8/16/22, 2. Our review of the transcript,
however, reveals arguments made by the parties followed by the trial court’s
entry of an order denying Appellant’s pre-trial motion to dismiss under
Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, which the court acknowledged was no longer premised
under Rule 600. See N.T. 4/4/22, 19 (“And now, this 4th day of April 2022,
the defendant’s motion to dismiss under Rule 600, which I understand that’s
what it’s captioned and that’s not what’s argued, but is DENIED.”). The
transcript from the hearing does not reflect the trial court’s reasons for
denying Appellant’s speedy trial violation claim that was argued at the
hearing. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to file a supplemental
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, addressing the court’s reasons for issuing the order
denying the dismissal motion, within sixty days of the trial court’s receipt of
the certified record.
____________________________________________
2 We note that, while the Rule 1925(a) opinion was issued by the Honorable
Jonathan D. Grine, who presided over Appellant’s trial and sentencing, the
Honorable Brian K. Marshall presided over the hearing on the motion to
dismiss.
-2-
J-S12036-23
Case remanded for preparation of a supplemental opinion. Jurisdiction
retained.
-3-