from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 30, 2018 In the
Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS [*] , P.J.E.
Lewis Moore appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in
the Court of Common Pleas of York County, after a jury
convicted him of possession of child
pornography and dissemination of child
pornography. On appeal, Moore challenges the trial
court's denial of his motion to dismiss pursuant to
Pa.R.Crim.P. 600. Upon careful review, we affirm.
trial court set forth the factual and procedural history of
this matter as follows:
On April 10, 2017, Officer Tiffany Pitts of the York City
Police Department commenced an investigation of [Moore] at
the request of the [Pennsylvania State Police
("PSP")]-Megan's Law Division. According to the
PSP, an identified tipster alerted them that [Moore] owns a
Facebook social media account, which could potentially be in
violation of 18 [Pa.C.S.A.] § 4915.1 since [Moore] had
not reported having a cell phone or social media account to
4In 2009, [Moore] entered guilty pleas in federal
court to child pornography offenses[.] He was released from
federal custody July 22, 2016, and required to register as a
On April 25, 2017, after reviewing the questionable Facebook
account which indicated the user's familial relationship
with a known relative of [Moore], Officer Pitts secured a
Facebook warrant from the Honorable  Gregory Snyder which,
upon execution, unveiled child pornography within private
inbox messages. Immediately thereafter, Officer Pitts secured
an electronics device warrant from  Magisterial District
Judge Joel N. Toluba. When Officer Pitts executed the search
warrant the same afternoon at [Moore's] residence located
at the LifePath, . . . [Moore] was seated in the
shelter's common area next to a cell phone he admitted
belonged to him which was charging in an adjacent outlet.
Officer Pitts Mirandized [Moore]; however, he made
statements indicating that he was unsure whether his phone
contained anything illegal. The officers seized [Moore's]
phone and three additional non-functional cell phones located
in [Moore's] personal storage area near where he slept.
The following day, [Moore] phoned his federal probation
officer to confess that he had been untruthful to him in the
past and that he was indeed in ownership of a cell phone that
was confiscated by police the day before. He also admitted
owning a Facebook account and surfing the internet using
Wi-Fi. A forensic analysis of [Moore's] cell phone was
completed on April 27, 2017, and revealed additional child
pornography. [Moore] was swiftly placed under arrest.
Trial Court Opinion, 2/11/19, at 2-3.
was formally charged by criminal complaint filed on April 27,
2017. On July 5, 2018, he filed a motion to dismiss pursuant
to Rule 600. After a hearing held on July 9, 2018, the trial
court denied Moore's motion and he immediately proceeded
to trial, after which a jury convicted him of the above
offenses. Sentencing was deferred until August 28, 2018, and
was subsequently continued until October 30, 2018, as a
result of continuances requested by the Commonwealth and the
defense. While Moore's sentencing was pending, on August
14, 2018, the Commonwealth filed notice of its intent to seek
a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years' incarceration
pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9718.2.
October 30, 2018, the trial court sentenced Moore to two
concurrent, mandatory sentences of 25 to 50 years'
imprisonment. Moore filed post-sentence motions, which were
denied by the court on November 2, 2018. Moore filed a timely
appeal, followed by a court-ordered concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
He raises the following question for our review:
The Commonwealth failed to bring [Moore's] case to trial
within the time limits of [Rule] 600. The trial court erred
when it counted time for a continuance issued by the district
judge as excusable delay. The district judge provided no
reason for the continuance, thus there is no evidence that
the continuance was based on judicial delay. That time was,
therefore, not excludable time and caused [Moore's] case
to go over the Rule 600 time. The Commonwealth was not
diligent in bringing [Moore's] case to trial.
The trial court's order denying [Moore's] motion to
dismiss based on Rule 600 should be reversed.
Brief of Appellant, at 4 (unnecessary capitalization
standard and scope of review in analyzing a Rule 600 issue
are both well-settled.
In evaluating Rule 600 issues, our standard of review of a
trial court's decision is whether the trial court abused
its discretion. Judicial discretion requires action in
conformity with law, upon facts and circumstances judicially
before the court, after hearing and due consideration. An
abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but
if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or
misapplied or the judgment exercised is manifestly
unreasonable, or ...