Com. v. Reinert, S., Com. v. Reinert, S. No. 1836 EDA 2016

In 1992 Reinert was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life; his conviction became final in 1997 after the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
In 2012 Reinert filed a first PCRA petition arguing trial counsel failed to convey a plea offer; counsel submitted an affidavit conceding non‑communication of an offer.
The PCRA court dismissed the 2012 petition as untimely; this Court affirmed in 2014.
In March 2016 Reinert filed a successive PCRA petition seeking reconsideration, arguing Montgomery permitted retroactive application of Lafler and Frye principles to his case.
The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the 2016 petition as untimely; Reinert appealed, challenging timeliness, layered ineffective‑assistance claims, and PCRA counsel effectiveness.
The Superior Court held the 2016 petition was patently untimely, Reinert failed to plead or prove any statutory timeliness exception, and thus the court lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness / PCRA jurisdiction	Reinert argued the court should revisit his first PCRA and apply new precedent (Montgomery/Lafler/Frye) to excuse lateness	Commonwealth argued the petition was filed >18 years after finality and no §9545 exception was pleaded or proven	Petition untimely; no exception shown; dismissal affirmed for lack of jurisdiction
Trial counsel ineffective for failing to convey plea offer	Reinert contended trial counsel failed to inform him of a plea and that Lafler/Frye should apply	Commonwealth noted this claim was previously raised and litigated in the 2012 PCRA and is subject to timeliness rules	Claim cannot overcome jurisdictional time bar; previously litigated and untimely
PCRA counsel ineffective for failing to present newly discovered facts	Reinert argued PCRA counsel was ineffective in the 2012 proceeding	Commonwealth argued claims about PCRA counsel must be raised timely in a serial petition and meet PCRA timeliness exceptions	Claim waived/untimely because Reinert did not plead or prove a timeliness exception
Retroactivity of Supreme Court decisions (Montgomery/Lafler/Frye)	Reinert relied on Montgomery to make Lafler/Frye retroactive to his case	Commonwealth argued Montgomery applies to Miller juvenile‑sentencing rules and Reinert was an adult; Lafler/Frye retroactivity not established here	Montgomery inapplicable; Reinert abandoned reliance in briefing; no retroactive right shown to excuse untimeliness

Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (right to effective counsel in plea bargaining; prejudice may be shown where deficient advice causes loss of a plea)
Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012) (duty to communicate formal plea offers)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016) (made Miller retroactive; concerns juvenile mandatory life sentences)
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment)
Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA timeliness and jurisdictional rules)
Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (timeliness exceptions and filing deadlines)
Commonwealth v. Sneed, 45 A.3d 1096 (Pa. 2012) (prohibits re-litigation of previously litigated PCRA claims under new theories)
Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120 (Pa. 2005) (ineffective assistance claims do not excuse PCRA time limits)