Com. v. Vanistendael, C., Com. v. Vanistendael, C. No. 1080 WDA 2016

Appellant Christopher Vanistendael (age 24) engaged in a sexual relationship with A.L., a 14–15-year-old; multiple acts over several occasions were alleged and corroborated.
Vanistendael was charged with IDSI, statutory sexual assault, corruption of minors, and other counts; convicted by jury on October 12, 2006 and sentenced to 10–23 years with a five‑year probation tail.
At trial, trial counsel (Downey) did not object to portions of the prosecutor’s closing argument in which the prosecutor suggested convicting to “put away a preferential predator” and warned that others could be harmed if the jury did not “decide this right.”
Appellant raised a PCRA claim alleging trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s comments; prior appellate history included a panel finding the comments arguably constituted misconduct but were waived because no contemporaneous objection was made.
The PCRA court denied relief; on appeal the Superior Court examined whether counsel’s failure to object satisfied the Pierce test (arguable merit, lack of reasonable basis, prejudice) and ultimately reversed the PCRA denial, granting a new trial.

Issue	Vanistendael's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to prosecutorial closing remarks implying the need to "put away a preferential predator" and warning others could be harmed	The prosecutor’s remarks were inflammatory, shifted jury focus, and counsel’s failure to object lacked reasonable basis, causing prejudice	Counsel made a tactical decision not to object to avoid highlighting the comment; issue previously waived on direct appeal due to lack of contemporaneous objection	Court held the claim had arguable merit; counsel had no reasonable basis to refrain from objecting; prejudice was established — ineffective assistance entitling Appellant to a new trial

Commonwealth v. Reyes-Rodriguez, 111 A.3d 775 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (articulates Pierce test application on PCRA ineffectiveness claims)
Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (establishes three‑prong ineffective assistance test)
Commonwealth v. Cooper, 941 A.2d 655 (Pa. 2007) (prosecutorial comments that engender fixed bias can justify new trial)
Commonwealth v. Green, 611 A.2d 1294 (Pa. Super. 1992) (egregious prosecutorial argument warranting reversal/new trial)