Trial courts have discretion to decide whether to grant or deny a nol pros based on two factors: "(1) whether the Commonwealth's reason for the request is reasonable; and (2) whether the defendant has a valid speedy trial claim." Commonwealth v. Goldman, 70 A.3d 874, 878 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing Commonwealth v. Reinhart, 353 A.2d 848, 853 (Pa. 1976)). This Court

Therefore, a defendant may move to dismiss his or her charges if trial does not begin within the 365-day period specified in Rule 600(A)(3). Commonwealth v. Goldman, 70 A.3d 874, 879 (Pa. Super. 2013). Relevant to the present case, "trial commences when the trial judge determines that the parties are present and directs them to proceed to voir dire . . . or to some other such first step in the trial."

To determine whether dismissal is required for a violation of Rule 600, "a court must first calculate the ‘mechanical run date,’ which is 365 days after the complaint was filed," or, under certain circumstances, refiled. Commonwealth v. Goldman , 70 A.3d 874, 879-880 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted). Thereafter, a court calculates whether the mechanical run date has been adjusted to account for periods of delay.

Discretion must be exercised on the foundation of reason, as opposed to prejudice, personal motivations, caprice or arbitrary actions. Discretion is abused when the course pursued represents not merely an error of judgment, but where the judgment is manifestly unreasonable or where the law is not applied or where the record shows that the action is a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will. Commonwealth v. Goldman , 70 A.3d 874, 878–79 (Pa. Super. 2013). "To constitute reversible error, an evidentiary ruling must not only be erroneous, but also harmful or prejudicial to the complaining party." Commonwealth v. Lopez , 57 A.3d 74, 81 (Pa. Super. 2012).

In the context of Rule 600, our case law requires that a court define and "account for any 'excludable time' and 'excusable delay.'" Commonwealth v. Goldman, 70 A.3d 874, 879 (Pa. Super. 2013). "Excludable time is delay that is attributable to the defendant or his counsel." Id.; see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(C).

Based on the content of our May 23, 2017 memorandum and the Commonwealth's August 8, 2017 Rule 1925(b) statement, it was reasonable for the trial court to assume that the Commonwealth sought to challenge its new suppression order based on the reasoning set forth in that memorandum. It was not at all obvious from the Commonwealth's Rule 1925(b) statement that it intended to raise a claim that this Court had not addressed in that memorandum. The Commonwealth also argues that waiver is not appropriate based on Commonwealth v. Holder, 805 A.2d 499 (Pa. 2002), Commonwealth v.Goldman, 70 A.3d 874 (Pa. Super. 2013), and Commonwealth v. Smith, 955 A.3d 391 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc). We disagree.

"Rather, Rule 600 'provides for dismissal of charges only in cases in which the defendant has not been brought to trial within the term of the adjusted run date, after subtracting all excludable and excusable time.'" Id. at 126 (quoting Commonwealth v. Goldman, 70 A.3d 874, 879 (Pa.Super. 2013)). "The adjusted run date is calculated by adding to the mechanical run date, i.e., the date 365 days from the complaint, both excludable and excusable delay."

"Rather, Rule 600 'provides for dismissal of charges only in cases in which the defendant has not been brought to trial within the term of the adjusted run date, after subtracting all excludable and excusable time.'" Id. at 126 (quoting Commonwealth v. Goldman, 70 A.3d 874, 879 (Pa.Super. 2013)). "The adjusted run date is calculated by adding to the mechanical run date, i.e., the date 365 days from the complaint, both excludable and excusable delay."

A nolle prosequi may be lifted at any time in the future, on appropriate motion, to revive the original charges.Commonwealth v. Goldman, 70 A.3d 874, 878 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations and quotation marks omitted). "A trial court's decision regarding a petition for nolle prosequi will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion."

Rule 600 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure "was designed to implement speedy trial rights to defendants based upon the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution." Commonwealth v. Goldman, 70 A.3d 874, 879 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 85 A.3d 482 (Pa. 2014). While the Rule provides for the release of a defendant who is not tried within 365 days of the filing of the criminal complaint, the Rule mandates only the release on nominal bail of a defendant "held in pretrial incarceration in excess of ... 180 days from the date on which the complaint is filed[.]" Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(B)(1).