Whether the PCRA court erred in dismissing the PCRA petition as untimely, where the petitioner was abandoned by plea counsel who failed to file a motion to reconsider sentence and direct appeal

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED A. Do Seal and wrPorkant Ceasar ekist and shoud Wert oF CEBTIORAR) be Granted % the PLCRA Court erred in dibenissing, the PCRA 38 Untina@y, where Fetitione, 119 Abandoned by . Plea~ Counsel Whe Failed ® File 9 emotion fo CelonsdJecontent And direct 9fPeal, where PLRA Petition wi9s , 1S5ve Peete lh we ‘egslat Yettioner Vas 4 Meatociovs , &, ay PBMAY OF WS fentence result om the hoiding, 17 A\\Yne? = RSUlTIng . C Andvered 19 the megtive kf the Courts below). B, do Sfetial and infront reasons elise where ehtorner Filed | & Fauaily Vntimnely PERK Ferrtit Yg+ does nok at Firs+ blush) dwechy SatuFy one of the kiume-bH excerhons 49 the Uh PCRA bur . PS Pet toner Wa Unaware of the Hime Wadd} / +o Fie F POA ahd wh o ™ITIT OMS Ay ch oy 4 ensure, Kore Lerten the Yur pose oF PER.Cm?, Gof CC) +h A Ay tion 1 bed Featedures, does due Froless require Sentencing Motion ange Sdvised of the TSht to file a Post; . AIVSed_ 44 Sententing oe ot BPPEA) thot he Shourd giso be , And thot iA the interes’ ae PORA’S ME Yer tine Consteanrt, of fae PIA, Shovid his Pehbor ne And PerSvank nohant Poo ¥unc? sep” P88 be deemed tumeiy filed, Got Addeessed YY the Corrs below, . 2S % Allefne Vs U-6. 133 $.ch 215/18 L.Ed. Vd BY Crold) _