Com. v. Moffitt, A., 305 A.3d 1095

On April 29, 2019, Trooper Keith Gamber attempted a traffic stop of a white GMC Yukon whose registration returned as a suspended "dead plate."
The Yukon ignored emergency lights/siren, sped (up to ~82 mph), crossed into oncoming lanes several times, ran red lights, nearly caused multiple collisions, and drove onto a sidewalk/property before stopping behind an apartment complex.
The driver (Appellant Adam Moffitt) fled on foot, dropped a wallet containing a PA ID with his name/photo, and was later arrested in July 2019.
A criminal complaint (filed July 18, 2019) charged felony fleeing/eluding, resisting arrest (misdemeanor), and 17 Vehicle Code summary offenses; trial by jury in March 2022 resulted in convictions on fleeing/eluding and resisting arrest and summary convictions; sentence: aggregate 12–24 months.
On appeal Moffitt challenged: (1) the trial court’s allowance of an amendment to the information on fleeing/eluding; (2) sufficiency of the resisting-arrest conviction; and (3) denial of his motion to quash summary counts as time‑barred under the 30‑day summary statute of limitations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Amendment of information to add subsection (a.2)(iii) (high‑speed chase element)	Commonwealth: amendment merely clarified grading and alleged element already apparent; notice sufficient	Moffitt: amendment added an element converting a 2d‑degree misdemeanor to a 3d‑degree felony and prejudiced defense	Amendment allowed; original information and complaint already placed defendant on notice of felony grading based on endangering the public via a high‑speed chase; no prejudice shown
Sufficiency of resisting arrest conviction (18 Pa.C.S. § 5104)	Commonwealth: high‑speed flight, repeated lane incursions, red‑light runs created substantial risk of bodily injury to officer/public	Moffitt: insufficient because there was no physical contact and officer was not within 20 feet; no force used	Evidence sufficient: flight exposed officer and public to substantial risk of bodily injury; conviction affirmed
Motion to quash summary counts as time‑barred under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5553(a)	Moffitt: summary Vehicle Code counts filed >30 days after incident and discovery, so barred	Commonwealth: summary counts were charged with misdemeanor/felony in same complaint, making the matter a court case not subject to the 30‑day summary rule	Denial of motion to quash affirmed: summary offenses were part of a court case (charged with higher offenses) so § 5553(a) inapplicable

Mentzer v. Commonwealth, 18 A.3d 1200 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standards for evaluating amendments to informations)
Sinclair v. Commonwealth, 897 A.2d 1218 (Pa. Super. 2006) (Rule 564 purpose: prevent prejudice and ensure notice when amending informations)
In re D.G., 114 A.3d 1091 (Pa. Super. 2015) (factors to assess prejudice from information amendments)
Jackson v. Commonwealth, 907 A.2d 540 (Pa. Super. 2007) (sufficiency‑of‑evidence standard and circumstantial proof)
Kline v. Commonwealth, 592 A.2d 730 (Pa. Super. 1991) (summary and greater charges should be brought together to avoid double jeopardy; summary charges may proceed as part of a court case)
Moran v. Commonwealth, 675 A.2d 1269 (Pa. Super. 1996) (summary offenses that are part of a criminal misdemeanor/felony complaint proceed as part of the court case)
Vergotz v. Commonwealth, 616 A.2d 1379 (Pa. Super. 1992) (summary statute‑of‑limitations application where only summary counts were charged; distinguished here)
Wyland v. Commonwealth, 987 A.2d 802 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review for motions to quash information)