Com. v. Lindsay, R., Com. v. Lindsay, R. No. 2541 EDA 2015

In July 2008 Lindsay assaulted Linda Jeune twice: first choking/slamming her, then later stabbing her multiple times and severing a finger; he was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, PIC, simple assault, and REAP.
Bench trial in March–April 2009 resulted in convictions on attempted murder, aggravated assault, and PIC; sentences of 20–40 years, 10–20 years, and 2.5–5 years were imposed consecutively.
Lindsay filed post-conviction litigation: initial pro se PCRA, nunc pro tunc reinstatement of direct appeal rights, direct appeal affirmed, then a later amended PCRA petition (filed 2012/2014) alleging trial counsel was ineffective, principally for failing to investigate/advise that attempted murder and aggravated assault might not merge, exposing him to an extra 20 years.
PCRA court issued a Rule 907 dismissal without an evidentiary hearing and dismissed the petition; Lindsay appealed.
The Superior Court reviewed the ineffective-assistance claim under Pennsylvania’s tripartite Pierce/Strickland framework and affirmed the PCRA court, finding Lindsay failed to show arguable merit, deficient strategy, or prejudice (including lack of any evidence of a plea offer or reliance on counsel’s advice).

Issue	Lindsay's Argument	Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/advise that attempted murder and aggravated assault might not merge, affecting Lindsay’s waiver of jury and plea decisions	Counsel failed to inform Lindsay he faced an aggregate sentence effectively adding ~20 years; this impaired his ability to knowingly reject plea offers and to knowingly waive a jury	Counsel reasonably pursued a waiver/bench-trial strategy, the information and charges were on the complaint/colloquy, no evidence of a plea offer or that Lindsay would have accepted one, and Lindsay didn’t show the three Pierce prongs	Affirmed: Lindsay failed to prove arguable merit, reasonable-basis deficiency, or prejudice; PCRA dismissal affirmed

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing the two-prong ineffective assistance standard for deficiency and prejudice)
Pierce v. Commonwealth, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (describing the tripartite Strickland-derived test in Pennsylvania)
Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2012) (trial counsel’s strategy is unreasonable only if an unchosen alternative offered substantially greater potential for success)
Commonwealth v. Elliott, 80 A.3d 415 (Pa. 2013) (discussing prejudice standard under PCRA ineffective-assistance claims)
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA dismissals)
Commonwealth v. Houck, 948 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2008) (elements of a valid jury-waiver colloquy)
Commonwealth v. Belsar, 676 A.2d 632 (Pa. 1996) (consecutive sentences permitted where conduct was broken off and resumed)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 855 A.2d 682 (Pa. 2004) (issues not raised in a PCRA petition cannot be raised first on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Ali, 10 A.3d 282 (Pa. 2010) (a pro se filing by a represented appellant is a legal nullity)
Commonwealth v. Camps, 772 A.2d 70 (Pa. Super. 2001) (no absolute right to a PCRA evidentiary hearing)
Commonwealth v. Carter, 21 A.3d 680 (Pa. Super. 2011) (deference to PCRA court findings)