Com. v. Clapper, D., 161 WDA 2016

Appellant David Clapper appeals from a PCRA order dated October 30, 2015, denying relief on his petition filed August 9, 2013.
Appellant was previously convicted at a bench trial of aggravated indecent assault and indecent assault, with those convictions arising from a 2009 incident involving a sexual assault of the victim.
On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal in 2013.
On remand from this Court, the PCRA court was limited to addressing whether PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the absence of a guilty plea colloquy.
PCRA counsel sought to amend to raise two new ineffective-assistance claims; the PCRA court denied leave to amend as outside the remand scope.
Appellant challenged the denial of leave to amend and argued that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present certain arguments; the court ultimately affirmed dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the PCRA court properly deny leave to amend?	Clapper asserts amendment was within remand scope.	Clapper's amendment outside remand; barred by Sepulveda limit.	Yes; denial affirmed; amendment not permitted.
Did the PCRA court err in concluding trial counsel was not ineffective?	Clapper contends counsel's new claims show ineffectiveness.	Commonwealth contends claims are without merit or untimely.	No reversible error; claims frivolous or deficient.

Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 144 A.3d 1270 (Pa. 2016) (PCRA court may not entertain new claims outside remand)
Clapper v. Commonwealth, 116 A.3d 693 (Pa. Super. 2014) (remand limited to specific issue; no further amendments authorized)
Commonwealth v. Liebel, 825 A.2d 630 (Pa. 2003) (scope of review for PCRA determinations)
Commonwealth v. Carpenter, 725 A.2d 154 (Pa. 1999) (DNA of PCRA proceedings and standard of review)
Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (timeliness requirement for illegal-sentencing claims)