Com. v. Arsad, W., 1914 EDA 2015

On Dec. 31, 2004, off‑duty Sgt. Shawn Wilson observed Arstad pull a silver .25 caliber gun, point it at vehicles and say “boom, boom, boom.” Police pursued and arrested Arstad after he dropped the gun; officers recovered the firearm (serial number scratched), ammunition, and small bags of marijuana.
Arstad was tried (jury trial) in Feb. 2011 and convicted of firearms offenses and possession of marijuana; sentenced to 6–12 years on Dec. 14, 2012.
Arstad did not file a direct appeal timely; he sought PCRA relief and in May 2015 the trial court reinstated his appellate rights nunc pro tunc; he appealed to the Superior Court.
On appeal Arstad raised two primary claims: the verdict was against the weight of the evidence due to alleged inconsistent police testimony, and the Commonwealth violated Rule 600 (speedy trial) because more than seven years elapsed from arrest to trial.
The trial court and Superior Court found the officers’ testimony credible overall and held that the weight‑of‑the‑evidence claim lacked merit.
The Superior Court found the Rule 600 claim waived for procedural reasons (no properly filed counseled written Rule 600 motion and inadequate briefing), and alternatively concluded no abuse of discretion in denying dismissal.

Issue	Arstad's Argument	Commonwealth / Trial Court Argument	Held
Weight of the evidence	Inconsistencies in police testimony about clothing and details undermine credibility and verdict	Jury and trial court were entitled to resolve minor inconsistencies; officers had clear view and observed discharge/drop of firearm	Affirmed — no palpable abuse of discretion; verdict not against weight of evidence
Rule 600 speedy‑trial dismissal	Trial did not commence until Feb. 2011 (arrest Dec. 2004); delay >365 days — dismissal required	Arstad failed to preserve issue (no counseled written Rule 600 motion) and appellate brief inadequately developed the claim; even on merits delays were excludable	Affirmed — claim waived for preservation/waiver and insufficiently developed; trial court would not have abused discretion if reviewed on merits

Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (standard and deference for weight‑of‑evidence review)
Commonwealth v. Brock, 61 A.3d 1015 (Pa. 2013) (Rule 600 requires a written, served motion to preserve claim)
Commonwealth v. Ramos, 936 A.2d 1097 (Pa. Super. 2007) (mechanical run date and calculation of excludable time under Rule 600)
Commonwealth v. Charlton, 902 A.2d 554 (Pa. Super. 2006) (distinguishing weight vs. sufficiency challenges)
Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 860 A.2d 102 (Pa. 2004) (appellate court cannot substitute its credibility determinations for the factfinder)