¶ 10 The rule has been construed by the Courts of this Commonwealth as preventing the Commonwealth from filing and withdrawing a set of charges and re-filing them later in order to circumvent the 365-day limitation period of the rule and, thereby, extend the time that a defendant could be brought to trial. See Commonwealth v. Meadius, 582 Pa. 174, 180, 870 A.2d 802, 805 (2005) ( citing Commonwealth v. Sires, 284 Pa.Super. 50, 424 A.2d 1386, 1387 (1981), and Commonwealth v. Mumich, 239 Pa.Super. 209, 361 A.2d 359, 361 (1976)). Therefore, prior to Meadius, this Court employed a two-pronged analysis to determine the proper date to calculate the 365-day period, whereby this Court would calculate the 365-day period from the second filing of charges if the following facts were present: (1) the first complaint was properly dismissed by a competent judicial or magisterial authority; and (2) the Commonwealth's actions precipitating dismissal were undertaken without any intent to evade the rule's mandate.

Appellant, whose sentence on the Philadelphia case expired on August 7, 2020, was released from custody on his own recognizance.The test to determine the Rule 600 run date in cases where identical charges have been filed was fully articulated in Commonwealthv.Meadius, 582 Pa. 174, 870 A.2d 802 (2005), and it is now housed as a comment to Rule 600:[T]he Commonwealth will be afforded the benefit of the date of the filing of the second complaint for purposes of calculating the time for trial when the withdrawal and refiling of charges are necessitated by factors beyond its control, the Commonwealth has exercised due diligence, and the refiling is not an attempt to circumvent the time limitation of Rule 600.

Leak relies on Commonwealth v. Meadius, 582 Pa. 174, 870 A.2d 802 (2005), in which our Supreme Court held that the trial court properly calculated the Rule 600 run date from the date of the original complaint filed by the Commonwealth. In Meadius, the prosecutor missed a preliminary hearing to attend a continuing legal education course, and two other preliminary hearings were postponed because Commonwealth witnesses failed to appear.

This Rule has been construed by the Courts of this Commonwealth as preventing the Commonwealth from filing and withdrawing a set of charges and re-filing them later in order to circumvent the 365-day limitation period of the Rule, thereby extending the time that a defendant could be brought to trial. SeeCommonwealth v. Meadius, 582 Pa. 174, 180, 870 A.2d 802, 805 (2005). Prior to Meadius, this Court employed a two-prong analysis to determine the proper date to calculate the 365-day period, whereby this Court would calculate the 365-day period from the second filing of charges if the following facts were present: (1) the first complaint was properly dismissed by a competent judicial or magisterial authority; and (2) the Commonwealth's actions precipitating dismissal were undertaken without any intent to evade the rule's mandate.

Nevertheless, our Supreme Court has applied Rule 600 to situations where the prosecution has withdrawn an original complaint and subsequently refiled that complaint. In Commonwealth v. Meadius, 582 Pa. 174, 870 A.2d 802 (2005), the Commonwealth filed a criminal complaint on January 16, 2001. The preliminary hearing was originally set for February 8, 2001; however, the Commonwealth requested a continuance because the prosecutor was attending a continuing legal education class.

Appellant argues the overall delay is chargeable to the Commonwealth because the Pennsylvania State Police assign troopers while cases are pending. Id. Appellant asserts our Supreme Court's reasoning in Commonwealth v. Meadius, 870 A.2d 802 (Pa. 2005), compels the dismissal of the charges against him. Appellant's Brief at 27.

Additionally, if the Commonwealth did not exercise due diligence in prosecuting its first complaint, it does not get the benefit of the filing date of an identical second complaint. Commonwealth v. Meadius, 870 A.2d 802, 808 (Pa. 2005).The Comment to Rule 600 summarizes:

Even if the Commonwealth had not waived this claim, we conclude that the Commonwealth's argument warrants no relief. In Commonwealth v. Meadius, 870 A.2d 802, 806 (Pa. 2005), the Commonwealth filed a complaint on January 16, 2001, charging the defendant with forgery and insurance fraud. Id. at 803. The court scheduled a preliminary hearing for February of 2001, which had to be rescheduled at the Commonwealth's request because the prosecuting attorney was scheduled to attend continuing legal education (CLE). Id.

This Court's scope of review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence on the record of the PCRA court's hearing, viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. See, e.g. , Commonwealth v. Meadius , 582 Pa. 174, 870 A.2d 802, 805 (Pa. 2005).Commonwealth v. Jones , 590 Pa. 202, 912 A.2d 268, 293 (2006).

This Court's scope of review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence on the record of the PCRA court's hearing, viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Meadius, 870 A.2d 802, 805 (Pa. 2005).Commonwealth v. Jones, 912 A.2d 268, 293 (Pa. 2006).