Com. v. Deangelo, D., Com. v. Deangelo, D. No. 1976 MDA 2016

David H. Deangelo was convicted by a jury of indecent assault (and summary harassment) after a bifurcated trial; he was sentenced to two years probation and did not appeal.
Deangelo filed a PCRA petition claiming trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly prepare and present character witnesses (he proffered 13 witnesses).
At trial defense counsel called all 13 persons; four qualified under Pa.R.E. 405 and testified to Deangelo’s law‑abiding reputation; nine either lacked foundation or gave inadmissible opinion testimony and were stricken or withdrawn.
At the PCRA hearing counsel conceded she had not sufficiently prepared many character witnesses and could not rehabilitate nine of them.
The PCRA court found counsel ineffective for failing to prepare/present character witnesses and granted a new trial, reasoning the botched testimony harmed Deangelo’s defense.
The Commonwealth appealed; the Superior Court reversed the PCRA court, holding Deangelo failed to prove prejudice and did not supply witness affidavits of availability/willingness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PCRA court erred finding counsel ineffective for failing to call character witnesses when counsel called all 13 witnesses	Deangelo: counsel ineffective for inadequate preparation causing most character testimony to be stricken/withdrawn	Commonwealth: counsel did call the witnesses; lack of preparation does not equal failure to call; petitioner didn’t provide witness affidavits	Held: PCRA petitioner failed to satisfy requirements for a failure‑to‑call claim (no affidavits); counsel’s conduct not shown ineffective under the test
Whether Deangelo suffered prejudice from the presentation of character evidence such that a new trial was required	Deangelo: poor presentation made witnesses “impotent,” casting suspicion and denying fair trial; character evidence was critical to credibility	Commonwealth: jury heard favorable character testimony from four qualified witnesses and others testified favorably; any additional testimony would be cumulative	Held: No prejudice shown—record contains admissible favorable character testimony and petitioner failed to show reasonable probability of a different outcome

Lesko, 15 A.3d 345 (P.A. 2011) (standard of review and PCRA ineffectiveness framework)
Watley, 153 A.3d 1034 (Pa. Super. 2016) (deference to findings supported by record)
Hull, 982 A.2d 1020 (Pa. Super. 2009) (character evidence as substantive evidence bearing on guilt)
Weiss, 606 A.2d 439 (Pa. 1992) (importance of character evidence where credibility is central)
Matias, 63 A.3d 807 (Pa. Super. 2013) (elements required to prove ineffective assistance for failing to call a witness)
O'Bidos, 849 A.2d 243 (Pa. Super. 2004) (need for affidavits from absent witnesses to support claim)
Gibson, 951 A.2d 1110 (Pa. 2008) (no ineffectiveness where uncalled testimony would be cumulative)