Com. v. Lingafelt, B., Com. v. Lingafelt, B. No. 1340 WDA 2016

Police executed an arrest warrant at Jessica Roe’s apartment in 2006 and found methadone, cocaine, marijuana, paraphernalia, a handgun, scales, baggies, money, and a safe; both Roe and Brian Lingafelt were arrested and charged, and later married.
Roe pled guilty to conspiracy-to-deliver charges and received a 3½ to 7 year sentence; upon reporting to prison she was charged with new offenses for attempting to bring contraband into the facility.
At Lingafelt’s jury trial, the Commonwealth negotiated limited testimony from Roe: she would identify herself, acknowledge marriage to Appellant, and admit her prior conspiracy guilty plea; in exchange the prosecutor would consider her cooperation on the new prison-related charges.
Roe testified under that agreement and admitted on cross-examination she testified to obtain favorable consideration; the jury convicted Lingafelt of PWID (methadone), possession counts, paraphernalia, and criminal conspiracy; he was sentenced to an aggregate 19–38 years with mandatory minimums.
Lingafelt’s direct appeal was denied; he filed a timely PCRA petition. The PCRA court granted relief only as to Alleyne-related mandatory minimum error (remanding for resentencing) and denied other claims, including prosecutorial misconduct, trial-court error for failing to conduct an on-the-record spousal-privilege colloquy, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth/Respondent's Argument	Held
1. Prosecutorial misconduct in negotiating Roe’s testimony and dealing with spousal privilege	Weeks improperly induced Roe to waive spousal privilege by offering consideration and failed to secure a formal on-the-record waiver	The negotiation and limited agreement were disclosed on the record; no contemporaneous objection was made; the claim was waived because it was not raised at trial or on direct appeal	Waived for failure to raise earlier; PCRA court denial affirmed
2. Trial-court error for not conducting an on-the-record colloquy when Roe waived spousal privilege	The court should have questioned Roe under oath to confirm a knowing, voluntary waiver of spousal privilege	The absence of an on-the-record colloquy was apparent at trial and not objected to; issue was waived on appeal	Waived for failure to raise earlier; PCRA court denial affirmed
3. Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to demand a formal on-the-record waiver/colloquy	Peppetti’s failure to demand a colloquy prejudiced Appellant because Roe’s testimony (as a cooperating spouse) was critical and linked Appellant to the conspiracy	Trial counsel and records show Roe was informed of her right and knowingly waived it; a colloquy would only have confirmed what was already true; appellant fails to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome	Claim denied: appellant failed to prove prejudice required for ineffectiveness under Strickland/PA law

Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (mandatory-minimum fact must be submitted to jury)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795 (2014) (PCRA review standard)
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 82 A.3d 998 (2013) (waiver rules under PCRA)
Commonwealth v. Fulton, 830 A.2d 567 (2003) (three-prong ineffectiveness test)