Com. v. Reyes, E., 991 MDA 2016

Reyes was charged with multiple sexual offenses against his then-11‑year‑old daughter arising from conduct allegedly occurring "a few weeks after New Year’s Day" 2009; he confessed during a police interview.
On December 1, 2014 Reyes entered a negotiated guilty plea to six counts and received an aggregate sentence of 12½ to 25 years (all counts concurrent) and Megan’s Law conditions.
Reyes did not file a direct appeal; he filed a timely PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel for failing to investigate/develop an alibi (that he was in New York for a funeral from ~Dec. 22, 2008 to Jan. 5–7, 2009).
At the PCRA evidentiary hearing, plea counsel testified he discussed the dates and alibi with Reyes, reviewed discovery showing the offense date was a few weeks after Jan. 1, 2009, and reasonably concluded the trip did not create a true alibi.
The PCRA court found counsel credible, Reyes not credible, concluded the alibi did not cover the relevant period and that any further investigation would have been futile; the court denied relief.
The Superior Court affirmed, adopting the PCRA court’s reasoning that (1) the alibi lacked merit, (2) counsel had reasonable basis to decline further pursuit, and (3) Reyes suffered no prejudice (no reasonable probability he would have gone to trial).

Issue	Reyes' Argument	Commonwealth / Plea Counsel Argument	Held
Whether plea counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/develop an alibi	Counsel failed to develop available alibi evidence (trip to NY) causing Reyes to plead guilty to crimes he did not commit	Discovery and the affidavit showed offenses occurred "a few weeks after" Jan. 1, 2009; the NY trip ended by Jan. 5–7 so it did not make commission impossible; counsel discussed and reasonably declined further pursuit	Denied — alibi had no arguable merit; counsel had reasonable basis; Reyes not prejudiced
Whether the guilty plea was involuntary	Plea induced by counsel’s coercion / poor investigation	Plea colloquy, signed plea forms, and counsel’s testimony show plea was knowing, voluntary, intelligent; Reyes admitted the factual basis and confessed to police	Denied — plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent
Whether variance in information date ("01/01/2009" v. "on or about") invalidates notice	Reyes argued complaint date should bind Commonwealth and support alibi	Date need not be exact; indictments/ informations may allege "on or about" and variance is fatal only if prejudicial or misleading	Denied — no prejudice; discovery consistently described period as weeks after New Year’s Day

Commonwealth v. Einhorn, 911 A.2d 960 (Pa. Super. 2006) (exact date not required where date is not an element)
Commonwealth v. Ali, 10 A.3d 282 (Pa. Super. 2010) (core of alibi is consistency between crime date/time and alibi)
Commonwealth v. Rainey, 928 A.2d 215 (Pa. 2007) (definition and standards for alibi defense)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Commonwealth v. Rollins, 738 A.2d 435 (Pa. 1999) (presumption of counsel effectiveness)
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 108 A.3d 779 (Pa. 2014) (counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless claim)
Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337 (Pa. Super. 2014) (ineffective assistance and guilty pleas)
Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185 (Pa. Super. 2013) (prejudice standard for guilty plea ineffectiveness)
Commonwealth v. Diaz, 913 A.2d 871 (Pa. Super. 2006) (manifest injustice standard for post‑plea withdrawal)
Commonwealth v. Muhammad, 794 A.2d 378 (Pa. Super. 2002) (binding effect of plea colloquy statements)
Commonwealth v. Pollard, 832 A.2d 517 (Pa. Super. 2003) (defendant bound by sworn plea statements)