author: Justice WECHT. Chief Justice SAYLOR,

text:
    143 A.3d 917
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Scott Bradley KINGSTON, Appellee.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Submitted Aug. 31, 2015.
    Decided Aug. 15, 2016.

      Daniel John Barrett, Esq., Bradford County District Attorney’s Office, for appellant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
    Justin Highlands, Esq., for appellee Scott Bradley Kingston.
    SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ.
   OPINION

Justice WECHT.

Section 906 of the Crimes Code provides that “[a] person may not be convicted of more than one of the inchoate crimes of criminal attempt, criminal solicitation or criminal conspiracy for conduct designed to commit or to culminate in the commission of the same crime.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 906. The question in this case, raised under a derivative theory of ineffective assistance of counsel, is whether that provision proscribes only convictions for two or more distinct inchoate crimes, or whether it also prohibits convictions for two or more counts of the same inchoate crime. We hold that Section 906 bars convictions only for multiple distinct inchoate crimes. Because the Superior Court concluded otherwise in remanding for an ineffectiveness hearing, we reverse.

On November 8, 2008, Scott Kingston was driving home from a party with his then-girlfriend, Jennifer Mroz, who was sitting in the passenger seat. Kingston drove his vehicle off the road and into a ditch. When police officers arrived, Mroz told them that Kingston, who was visibly intoxicated, had been driving the vehicle. The police arrested Kingston and charged him with driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance (“DUI”), 76 Pa.C.S. § 3802, and several other Motor Vehicle Code violations. A blood test revealed that Kingston’s blood alcohol concentration was 0.26% shortly after the accident. Kingston had three prior DUI convictions. If convicted of a fourth, he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of one-year incarceration. See 75 Pa.C.S. § 3804(b)(4).

Prior to his trial, Kingston sent Mroz three letters from the Wyoming County Jail, where he was being held on charges unrelated to this appeal. In his first letter, Kingston asked Mroz to speak to Kingston’s parents, and to find out whether they were willing to testify that Kingston’s father was driving the vehicle on the night of the accident. A few weeks later, Kingston sent Mroz a second letter, asking her to tell “them” that she was driving on the night of the accident. Kingston assured Mroz that if she took the blame for the collision “they” could only “give [her] a fine.” Notes of Testimony (“N.t.”), 3/24/2010, exh. 2. Twelve days after that, Kingston sent Mroz a third letter, advising her as follows:

I found out if you plead the 5th and say that you were toxicated you whont get nothing out of it and it should be dropped we got to do something time is running out and I got to get a lawyer be for Jan. 14-09 at 1:00 did you get that statment that I sent you honey find out and see if you should do that but dont say that I was driving the car if thay asek hoo was just say you was baby because thay cant get you for a DUI because thay did not take nothing.

Id. at exh. 3 (verbatim).

In March 2009, Mroz testified for the Commonwealth at Kingston’s preliminary hearing. Contrary to Kingston’s wishes, Mroz testified that Kingston was driving at the time of the accident. The charges were held for court, and Kingston proceeded to trial. However, due to an administrative oversight, Mroz did not receive notice that the Commonwealth had subpoenaed her to testify at Kingston’s trial until after it had commenced. When she failed to appear on the morning of Kingston’s trial, the court issued a bench warrant for Mroz and proceeded without her. The jury ultimately acquitted Kingston after Kingston’s father falsely testified that he was driving the vehicle on the night in question.

The day after Kingston’s trial, Mroz met with a detective from the Bradford County District Attorney’s Office and explained the subpoena mix-up. Mroz also told the detective about the letters that Kingston had sent to her from jail. The Commonwealth subsequently charged Kingston with, inter alia, three counts of soliciting perjury and three counts of soliciting to hinder apprehension or prosecution. 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 4902, 5105. A jury convicted Kingston of all six counts, and the trial court imposed a consecutive sentence for each. On direct appeal, the Superior Court affirmed Kingston’s judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Kingston, 1031 MDA 2010 (Pa.Super. May 26, 2011) (unpublished memorandum).

On May 2, 2012, Kingston timely filed a petition for relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46. Therein, Kingston alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the imposition of consecutive sentences for each of his solicitation convictions. Kingston argued that, pursuant to Section 906 of the Crimes Code, his six convictions should have merged into only two for sentencing purposes, one for soliciting perjury and one for soliciting to hinder apprehension or prosecution. The PCRA court dismissed Kingston’s petition without a hearing, concluding that Kingston’s ineffectiveness claim lacked arguable merit because Section 906 “does not prohibit multiple convictions for the same type of inchoate crime.” PCRA Court Order, 8/23/2012, at 2. Kingston appealed the PCRA court’s dismissal of his petition to the Superior Court.

A divided three-judge panel of the Superior Court held that Kingston’s ineffectiveness claim had arguable merit, and remanded the case to the PCRA court for a hearing on the remaining prongs of the Pierce test. See Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153, 527 A.2d 973 (1987) (setting forth Pennsylvania’s three-factor inquiry for ineffective assistance of counsel claims). The Superior Court acknowledged that no existing precedent supported Kingston’s reading of the statute, but concluded nonetheless that Section 906 bars his multiple convictions for distinct solicitations designed to culminate in a single underlying crime. Although the majority avowedly relied upon the plain language of the statute, it focused mainly upon the policy underlying Section 906’s treatment of multiple inchoate convictions. Specifically, the court explained that the statute is based upon “a recognition that the [societal] harm in inchoate crimes resides ‘not in the acts already accomplished, but in the danger that [an] appellant would succeed in his criminal endeavor.’ ” Commonwealth v. Kingston, 2014 WL 10558605, at *4 (Pa.Super. Oct. 29, 2014) (unpublished memorandum) (quoting Commonwealth v. Crocker, 256 Pa.Super. 63, 389 A.2d 601, 604 (1978)).

The court also concluded that Kingston’s six separate solicitations were designed to culminate in the commission of only two crimes. The court reasoned that, although Kingston’s letters to Mroz requested different methods of perjury or hindering prosecution, “they were all methods to the same end — namely, exculpation of Kingston o[n] the DUI charges.” Id. The court emphasized that Kingston’s three contrived narratives were mutually exclusive. If she wanted to exculpate Kingston, Mroz had to select one of these stories and stick with it. The court likened the situation to “a defendant soliciting another person to break into a house later that evening by going through the front door, the back door, or through a window.” Id.

The Honorable Mary Jane Bowes dissented. In her view, Section 906 “does not preclude a sentence on multiple solicitation counts where the defendant, on separate dates, solicited a person to commit the same crime.” Id. at *7 (Bowes, J., dissenting). Judge Bowes stressed that “Section 906 has consistently been applied to preclude multiple sentences for criminal attempt to commit crime X, criminal conspiracy to commit crime X, and criminal solicitation to commit crime X, not to prohibit sentencing on multiple acts of criminal solicitation.” Id. According to Judge Bowes, the Superior Court majority essentially had redrafted the statute to read, “a person may not be convicted of more than one criminal attempt, criminal solicitation or criminal conspiracy for conduct designed to commit or to culminate in the commission of the same crime.” Id.

Judge Bowes also rejected the majority’s conclusion that Kingston intended for all six of his solicitations to culminate in only two crimes. She noted that Kingston thrice solicited Mroz, sending three separate letters spread across several weeks. For this reason, Judge Bowes rejected as inapposite the majority’s analogy to a situation in which a defendant solicits another person “to break into a house later that evening by going through the front door, the back door, or through a window.” Finally, Judge Bowes observed that the court’s interpretation of Section 906 would yield absurd results, namely, that “a person who solicits a person on two occasions, a year apart, to murder his or her spouse could only be sentenced on one count of solicitation because the spouse could only be murdered one time.” Id. at *5-6.

We granted the Commonwealth’s petition for allowance of appeal to resolve the novel question of statutory interpretation underlying Kingston’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Our standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary. Snead v. Soc. for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of Penna., 604 Pa. 166, 985 A.2d 909, 912 (2009) (citing In re Milton Hershey Sch., 590 Pa. 35, 911 A.2d 1258, 1261 (2006)). Specifically, we consider whether Section 906 forbids multiple convictions for two or more violations of a single inchoate offense when all of the violations are designed to culminate in a single underlying crime. 18 Pa.C.S. § 906.

In all matters involving statutory interpretation, we apply the Statutory Construction Act, 1 Pa.C.S. §§ 1501 et seq., which directs us to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the General Assembly. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a). To accomplish that goal, we interpret statutory language not in isolation, but with reference to the context in which it appears. See Consulting Eng’rs Council of Penna. v. State Architects Licensure Bd., 522 Pa. 204, 560 A.2d 1375, 1377 (1989). A statute’s plain language generally provides the best indication of legislative intent. See, e.g., McGrory v. Dep’t of Transp., 591 Pa. 56, 915 A.2d 1155, 1158 (2007); Commonwealth v. Gilmour Mfg. Co., 573 Pa. 143, 822 A.2d 676, 679 (2003); Penna. Fin. Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan v. English, 541 Pa. 424, 664 A.2d 84, 87 (1995) (“Where the words of a statute are clear and free from ambiguity the legislative intent is to be gleaned from those very words.”). Only where the words of a statute are ambiguous will we resort to other considerations to discern legislative intent. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(c); see In re Canvass of Absentee Ballots of Nov. 4, 2003 Gen. Election, 577 Pa. 231, 843 A.2d 1223, 1230 (2004) (citing O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 566 Pa. 161, 778 A.2d 1194, 1201 (2001)).

The Commonwealth argues that Section 906 merely prevents trial courts from imposing a sentence for more than one of the three preparatory offenses listed in the statute whenever a defendant’s conduct is designed to culminate in the commission of a single crime. The provision does not, according to the Commonwealth, bar multiple sentences when a defendant is convicted of multiple counts of a single inchoate offense. In support of its position, the Commonwealth provides only a few conclusory assertions regarding the General Assembly’s intent. Without any accompanying citations or supporting analysis, the Commonwealth contends that (1) the legislature intended for “separate inchoate crimes to be punished” individually; (2) the Superior Court’s interpretation of Section 906 was “unreasonable and contrary to the intent of the legislature”; and (3) “[n]o lawmakers wanted to enact a ‘volume discount’ on criminal conduct.” Brief for the Commonwealth at 16.

Kingston’s arguments are similarly perfunctory. Echoing his Superior Court brief, Kingston argues that the trial court’s imposition of six consecutive sentences was contrary to the Superior Court’s holdings in Commonwealth v. Grekis, 411 Pa.Super. 513, 601 A.2d 1284 (1992), and Commonwealth v. Crocker, 256 Pa.Super. 63, 389 A.2d 601 (1978).

Before proceeding to our analysis of Section 906, we first dispense with Kingston’s reliance upon Crocker and Grekis. Crocker provides no support for Kingston’s argument because the appellant in that case was convicted of two different inchoate crimes, not multiple counts of a single inchoate crime. Grekis also is distinguishable. There, the Superior Court rejected as meritless the appellant’s argument that his convictions for three separate counts of solicitation to commit involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (“IDSI”) violated Section 906. The court explained that the appellant’s claim was “without factual basis” because the trial court imposed a sentence for only one of his IDSI convictions and imposed no further penalty for the remaining counts. Grekis, 601 A.2d at 1294. Even so, the court observed that Section 906 was inapplicable because the appellant’s three solicitations were designed to culminate in three distinct crimes. At all events, whether Kingston’s solicitations were directed toward the commission of the same crime is not before this Court, the language that Kingston cites is obiter dicta, and this Court is not bound by the decisions of the Superior Court.

Our analysis begins with the plain language of Section 906, which provides that “[a] person may not be convicted of more than one of the inchoate crimes of criminal attempt, criminal solicitation or criminal conspiracy for conduct designed to commit or to culminate in the commission of the same crime.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 906. Pennsylvania courts have applied this provision in situations where a defendant commits two or three inchoate offenses while preparing to commit a single underlying crime. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Bright, 361 Pa.Super. 261, 522 A.2d 573 (1987); Commonwealth v. Gonzales, 297 Pa.Super. 66, 443 A.2d 301 (1982); Commonwealth v. Tingle, 275 Pa.Super. 489, 419 A.2d 6 (1980). To illustrate, suppose that Dan, with the requisite criminal intent, asks Abe to commit a robbery. Abe agrees and takes a substantial step toward the commission of the robbery. Dan has committed three inchoate crimes. Yet, pursuant to Section 906, he may be punished for only one.

The question that we face distills to whether “more than one of the inchoate crimes” refers to more than one substantive inchoate crime only, or whether it also connotes more than one count of a particular inchoate crime. In effect, Kingston maintains that multiple counts constitute discrete “crimes” in the same way that criminal attempt, criminal solicitation, and criminal conspiracy are discrete “crimes.” Although we acknowledge that the word “crimes,” at least in the abstract, might encompass two or more violations of a single substantive criminal offense, a close examination of the necessary predicates to Kingston’s argument reveals that his interpretation of Section 906 is not so reasonable as to render the statute ambiguous.

This Court does not dissect statutory text and interpret it in a vacuum. See Mishoe v. Erie Ins. Co., 673 Pa. 267, 824 A.2d 1153, 1155 (2003). We cannot disregard the fact that “inchoate crimes,” as used in section 906, precedes three expressly enumerated inchoate offenses. Section 906 forbids convictions for “more than one of the inchoate crimes” listed. 18 Pa.C.S. § 906. To accept Kingston’s interpretation would require us to privilege the unspoken “counts” over the express enumeration of distinct inchoate offenses. We perceive no basis for adopting such a tortured interpretation. In contrast to Section 906, the Crimes Code is replete with provisions that speak in terms of “counts” or “violations” of a particular criminal offense. See, e.g., 18 Pa.C.S. § 7507.1(a.l) (listing circumstances under which “separate violations” of this section occur); 18 Pa.C.S. § 6305(f)(2) (“No more than one violation of subsection (a) per person arises out of separate incidents which take place in a 24-hour period.”); 18 Pa.C.S. § 3213(f) (“The department shall have the authority to assess a civil penalty of up to $5,000 against any facility for each violation of this subsection.”); 18 Pa.C.S. § 4902(e) (providing that the Commonwealth may charge “a single count” of perjury based upon a defendant’s mutually exclusive statements); ef. 1 Pa. C.S. § 1930 (“Whenever a penalty or forfeiture is provided for the violation of a statute, such penalty or forfeiture shall be construed to be for each such violation.”). We have held that all sections of the Crimes Code “are necessarily interrelated and should be read and construed as an entirety.” Commonwealth v. Lobiondo, 501 Pa. 599, 462 A.2d 662, 664 (1983).

Viewed as a whole, Title 18 evinces the General Assembly’s appreciation of the distinction between convictions for more than one of several specifically enumerated crimes and convictions for multiple violations of a single crime. The General Assembly included no language in Section 906 limiting convictions for two or more successive violations of a single inchoate crime. Instead, it barred multiple convictions for “more than one of the inchoate crimes of criminal attempt, criminal solicitation or criminal conspiracy.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 906.

Kingston’s argument that Section 906 “bars the imposition of sentences for multiple counts of the same inchoate charge,” Brief for Kingston at 7 (capitalization modified), is untenable. It requires either that we ignore existing words in the statute or that we add additional words to it. We can do neither. Section 906 does not prevent convictions for more than one count of the inchoate crime of solicitation; it applies only to convictions for “more than one of the inchoate crimes of criminal attempt, criminal solicitation or criminal conspiracy.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 906. The General Assembly’s use of the plural “crimes” is illuminating. Even if Section 906 spoke in terms of convictions for “more than one of the inchoate crime” of attempt, solicitation, or conspiracy, we would face a baffling command at best. Unless we proceed to inject the word “counts” or “violations” into the statute, the question necessarily would arise: “More than one what?”

Mroz neither agreed nor attempted to commit perjury or to hinder the Commonwealth’s prosecution of Kingston. Thus, as it relates to this appeal, Kingston was convicted of solicitation only. Nevertheless, the Superior Court departed from the plain language of Section 906 because it reasoned that, if the General Assembly wanted to prohibit convictions for two or more different inchoate offenses, but not for multiple counts of the same inchoate offense, then it would have replaced the phrase “for conduct designed to commit or to culminate in the commission of the same crime,” id., “with the much shorter ‘same conduct.’ ” Kingston, 2014 WL 10558605, at *4. Although that language would be more concise, it would do nothing to clarify that “more than one of the inchoate crimes” means only more than one distinct inchoate crime. The Superior Court majority did not engage in any further analysis of Section 906’s text, nor did it explicitly find the statute to be ambiguous.

Even if we were willing to look beyond Section 906’s unambiguous language, contra 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b), none of the traditional principles of statutory interpretation support Kingston’s reading. It is not difficult to imagine why the General Assembly would proscribe multiple convictions for distinct inchoate offenses in circumstances where a defendant’s conduct was designed to culminate in the commission of a single underlying crime. Successive steps in a criminal undertaking often will constitute a criminal solicitation, a criminal conspiracy, and a criminal attempt, because all three offenses necessarily overlap. All conspiracies follow a solicitation of some kind; there can be no acceptance without an offer. In addition, the difference between an “overt act” necessary to establish a criminal conspiracy and a “substantial step” evidencing a criminal attempt is one of degree only. See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 903(e) (“No person may be convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime unless an overt act in pursuance of such conspiracy is alleged and proved to have been done by him or by a person with whom he conspired.”), 901(a) (“A person commits an attempt when, with intent to commit a specific crime, he does any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that crime.”).

It is less clear why the General Assembly would bar plural convictions for defendants who attempt repeatedly to commit the same crime. The Superior Court reasoned that “the policy behind Section 906 rest[s] on a recognition that the harm in inchoate crimes resides ‘not in the acts already accomplished, but in the danger that [an] appellant [mil] succeed in his criminal endeavor,’ ” Kingston, 2014 WL 10558605, at *4 (quoting Commonwealth v. Crocker, 256 Pa.Super. 63, 389 A.2d 601, 604 (1978)). This policy statement is based upon the commentary to Section 5.05(3) of the Model Penal Code (“MPC”), which states that “[a] person may not be convicted of more than one offense defined by this Article for conduct designed to commit or to culminate in the commission of the same crime.” MPC § 5.05(3). As the Superior Court noted in Crocker, the drafters of the MPC explained that Section 5.05(3)

reflects the policy, frequently stated in these comments, of finding the evil of preparatory action in the danger that it may culminate in the substantive offense that is its object. Thus conceived, there is no warrant for cumulating convictions of attempt, solicitation and conspiracy to commit the same offense.

MPC § 5.05, cmt. 180 (Tent. Draft No. 10,1960).

The explanatory note to Section 5.05 of the MPC likewise provides as follows:

Subsection (3) provides that a person may not be convicted of more than one inchoate offense for conduct designed to culminate in the commission of the same crime. See also Section 1.07(l)(b), which prohibits conviction of both the inchoate offense and the substantive offense that is its object.

MPC § 5.05, note.

The Superior Court acknowledged that Kingston committed six separate solicitations, but found that “they all envisioned culmination in but two criminal acts,” perjury and hindering prosecution. Kingston, 2014 WL 10558605, at *5. This conclusion may seem logical in light of the MPC’s avowal that inchoate crimes warrant punishment only because of the potential that they might lead to the commission of the predicate offense. See MPC § 5.05, cmt. 180 (Tent. Draft No. 10,1960). But the Superior Court’s reliance upon this language was misplaced. In enacting Chapter nine of our Crimes Code, the General Assembly manifestly rejected the philosophy expressed in the MPC commentary that inchoate criminal liability derives entirely from the risk that an inchoate act might lead to the commission of the underlying substantive offense.

In contrast to the MPC’s risk-of-danger approach, this Court has explained that the purpose of Pennsylvania’s solicitation statute “is to hold accountable those who would command, encourage, or request the commission of crimes by others.” Commonwealth v. Hacker, 609 Pa. 108, 15 A.3d 333, 336 (2011). Thus, Pennsylvania law recognizes that inchoate crimes may present significant social dangers unconnected to the risk that they might culminate in the commission of the underlying substantive offense. Consistent with this theory of inchoate criminal liability, the General Assembly has chosen to define the crime of attempt to include situations in which “it would have been impossible for the accused to commit the crime attempted.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 901(b). Finally, Pennsylvania law differs from the MPC insofar as our Crimes Code permits convictions for conspiracy or solicitation even if a defendant is convicted of the underlying predicate offense. Compare Commonwealth v. Miller, 469 Pa. 24, 364 A.2d 886, 886-87 (1976) (holding that criminal conspiracy does not merge into the underlying substantive offense or offenses) with MPC § 1.07(l)(b) (“[A defendant] may not ... be convicted of more than one offense if one offense consists only of a conspiracy or other form of preparation to commit the other....”). For these reasons, the Superior Court’s rationale rests upon the mistaken perception that our Crimes Code imposes liability for inchoate crimes only if there exists a unique danger that a defendant will succeed in his or her criminal endeavor.

In any event, a policy-based analysis cannot overcome the unambiguous language of Section 906. See Penna. Fin. Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan, 664 A.2d at 87 (“Where the words of a statute are clear and free from ambiguity the legislative intent is to be gleaned from those very words.”). Section 906 does not forbid the imposition of consecutive sentences for multiple violations of a single inchoate offense. Accordingly, Kingston’s PCRA claim lacks arguable merit.

The order of the Superior Court is reversed.

Justices BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY and MUNDY join the opinion.

Chief Justice SAYLOR files a dissenting opinion.

Chief Justice SAYLOR,

dissenting.

The majority holds that Section 906’s prohibition against convictions “of more than one of the inchoate crimes of criminal attempt, criminal solicitation or criminal conspiracy for conduct designed to commit or to culminate in the commission of the same crime” operates only horizontally, i.e., to foreclose convictions for combinations of different inchoate crimes, but not vertically to preclude convictions for multiple instances of any one of the named inchoate offenses. 18 Pa.C.S. § 906. From my point of view, the statute is materially ambiguous in such regard, and accordingly, the rule of lenity should be applied to enforce horizontal and vertical preclusion.

In its reasoning rejecting vertical preclusion, the majority first states that acceptance of such proscription “would require us to privilege the unspoken ‘counts’ over the express enumeration of distinct inchoate offenses.” Majority Opinion, at 449, 143 A.3d at 924. In point of fact, however, no such privileging is required, since extension of a rule of preclusion across the two categories which are facially encompassed within the statute simply is not an either-or proposition. Along these lines, I also do not see what is added through the observation that the Crimes Code may otherwise frequently speak in terms of “counts” or “violations.” See id. at 449-50, 143 A.3d at 924-25. Straightforwardly, a crime is simply a violation of the law, see Black’s Law Dictionary (17th ed.1999); accord 18 Pa.C.S. § 106, so that the use of the terms “violation,” versus “count,” versus “crime” would seem to me to be immaterial. Accordingly, the answer to the majority’s defining question— “[m]ore than one what?” — seems apparent. Majority Opinion, at 450, 143 A.3d at 925. Section 906 bars convictions of more than one crime or crimes in the delineated circumstances.

The majority also finds the Legislature’s use of the term “crimes” in Section 906, as opposed to “crime” to be clarifying. See Majority Opinion, at 450-51, 143 A.3d at 924-25. From my point of view, again, little grammatical difference arises out of the use of the plural form, and certainly not one so great as to remove the manifest ambiguity from the statute.

In terms of the policy, it seems to me that the Legislature may have contemplated both horizontal and vertical preclusion to mitigate some of the conceptual difficulties surrounding inchoate offenses by curtailing their proliferation in association with a single object crime. Notably, and in all events, the Sentencing Code has been structured to allow a range of serious penalties and to afford sentencing courts discretion to consider various factors, which would include whether there may have been multiple acts or instances of solicitation, for example. In Appellee’s case, the status of solicitation of perjury as a third-degree felony (carrying a maximum prison sentence of seven years, see 18 Pa.C.S. § 1108(8)), and solicitation of hindering prosecution as a misdemeanor of the second degree (implicating a maximum sentence of two years, see id. § 1104(2)), would have left Appellant exposed to an aggregate maximum sentence of at least eighteen years’ imprisonment arising out of his various efforts to thwart his prosecution for DUI, even assuming that vertical preclusion would apply. See generally Commonwealth v. Hoke, 599 Pa. 587, 594, 962 A.2d 664, 668 (2009) (explaining that inchoate crimes have the same maximum sentences as the underlying crime, per Section 905(a) of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. § 905(a)).

I recognize that the majority’s construction of Section 906 is consistent with the approach of some other courts, see, e.g., State v. Badillo, 260 Or.App. 218, 317 P.3d 315, 320 (2013), and, in fact, may reflect the more likely underlying objective of the drafters of the Model Penal Code who originally formulated the proscription. See American Law Institute, Proposed Official Draft of the Model Penal Code § 5.05(3) (1962). Nevertheless, left to my own devices, in the face of these sorts of material ambiguities in statutes implicating substantial criminal liabilities, I favor more consistent application of the rule of lenity, thus leaving it to the Legislature to make its intentions plain and explicit to the degree that it favors more punitive approaches. Accord, e.g., Commonwealth v. Booth, 564 Pa. 228, 234, 766 A.2d 843, 846 (2001) (explaining that, “where ambiguity exists in the language of a penal statute, such language should be interpreted in the light most favorable to the accused” (citing Commonwealth v. Wooten, 519 Pa. 45, 53, 545 A.2d 876, 879 (1988))). In this vein, I regard some of the courts’ efforts to draw firm conclusions from ambiguous language to be problematic in their own right.

For the above reasons, I would affirm the order of the Superior Court.

      . In order to obtain relief based upon an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must establish that: (1) the underlying claim has arguable merit; (2) no reasonable basis existed for counsel’s actions or failure to act; and (3) petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel's error such that there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different absent such error. Pierce, 527 A.2d at 975.

      . The Commonwealth also argues now that Kingston’s solicitations were not designed to culminate in the commission of the same crime. Brief for the Commonwealth at 13. Because the Commonwealth did not appeal this issue, we will not consider it.

      . Although Section 906 bars “multiple convictions,” the Superior Court has held, and we have assumed without explicitly deciding, that the statute proscribes multiple judgments of sentence. Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 614 Pa. 664, 39 A.3d 977, 983 (2012); Commonwealth v. Grekis, 411 Pa.Super. 513, 601 A.2d 1284, 1295 (1992) ("[Section 906] is designed to eliminate multiple convictions, i.e., judgments of sentence, for conduct which constitutes preparation for a single criminal objective.”). Neither the Commonwealth nor Kingston disputes this approach. Thus, we assume for purposes of this appeal that Section 906 prohibits multiple judgments of sentence.

      . Kingston also argues that his convictions for soliciting perjury should have merged with his convictions for soliciting to hinder apprehension or prosecution. According to Kingston, “both individual crimes were designed to culminate in the commission of the same crime, which was to elicit false testimony under oath, at the time of [t]rial.” Brief for Kingston at 9. Kingston did not raise this issue with the PCRA court in his Pa.R.A.P.1925(b) statement, and the Superior Court did not address it. See Kingston's Rule 1925(b) Statement, 12/5/2012, at 1-2 (unnumbered); Kingston, 2014 WL 10558605, at *5 ("While there are six separate solicitations involved, they all envisioned culmination in but two criminal acts....”). Thus, we need not consider this argument.

      . See supra n. 2.

      . In reKenin’s Trust Estate, 343 Pa. 549, 23 A.2d 837, 842 (1942) (“[I]n every case[,] what is actually decided is the law applicable to the particular facts; all other legal conclusions therein are but obiter dicta." (internal quotation marks omitted)).

      . Commonwealth v. Cook, 558 Pa. 50, 735 A.2d 673, 679 n. 8 (1999) ("[T]his court is not bound by rulings of a lower court in this Commonwealth.”).

      . Dan is guilty of solicitation because he requested that Abe engage in specific criminal conduct that constitutes robbery. 18 Pa.C.S. § 902(a). Dan also is guilty of attempt because Abe, who is Dan's accomplice, took a substantial step toward the commission of the robbery. 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 901, 306 (defining an accomplice to include a person who, with the intent of promoting or facilitating the commission of an offense, solicits another to commit it). Finally, Dan is guilty of conspiracy because he and Abe agreed that Abe would commit the robbery. 18 Pa.C.S. § 903(a). Dan’s intent to promote or to facilitate the robbery satisfies the mens rea requirement for all three crimes, see 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 901-903, and Abe’s substantial step toward the commission of the robbery also constitutes an overt act necessary to establish conspiracy. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 903(e).

      . To illustrate the distinction, consider the following hypothetical. Imagine a provision that states, "no person may be employed by more than one of the co-equal branches of the legislative branch or the judicial branch in any five-year period.” This language clearly would prohibit a legislator from serving as judge during (or within five years after) his or her legislative tenure. However, it would not prevent a trial court judge from moving to an appellate court, or a member of the House of Representatives from moving to the Senate. The unambiguous statutory text forbids employment in multiple "branches,” a prohibition that no one reasonably could construe as barring multiple positions within a single branch.

      . Even if the General Assembly intended to accomplish this result, it is unlikely that it would have used Section 906, or a provision like it, to do so. If the General Assembly wanted to restrict, or prohibit outright, multiple solicitation convictions, it likely would have done so within the section defining criminal solicitation. Indeed, the General Assembly did just that in the context of criminal conspiracy. See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 903(a) (providing that a person is guilty of conspiracy if he agrees with another “person or persons” to commit, attempt to commit, or solicit a crime), 903(b) (defining a single conspiratorial relationship to encompass persons who have conspired to commit the same crime, even if they did not know the identity of some co-conspirators), 903(c) ("If a person conspires to commit a number of crimes, he is guilty of only one conspiracy so long as such multiple crimes are the object of the same agreement or continuous conspiratorial relationship,”). We have held that, “where a section of a statute contains a given provision, the omission of such a provision from a similar section is significant to show a different legislative intent,” Fletcher v. Penna. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 603 Pa. 452, 985 A.2d 678, 684 (2009).

      . As an example of the difficulty arising out of the litigation of multiple inchoate crimes, in the present case the Commonwealth was required to forego one of the conspiracy convictions given that the relevant offense had mistakenly been characterized as solicitation on the jury verdict slips deriving from the nineteen charged, interwoven, and substantially overlapping inchoate crimes. See N.T., May 17, 2010, at 3.

      . In this regard, Appellee was also convicted of conspiracy to solicit another person (Steven Boiler) to solicit Mroz to hinder the prosecution and commit perjury.
      Parenthetically, while these sorts of double inchoate offenses may implicate conceptual legal questions in their own right, see, e.g., Ira P. Robbins, Double Inchoate Crimes, 26 Harv. J. on Legis. 1 (1989), Appellee has not challenged these conspiracy convictions on such terms.

      . In this respect, I note that the Commonwealth already has had the benefit of the Legislature’s allowance for multiple, factually-overlapping crimes (solicitation of hindering prosecution and solicitation of perjury), arising out of the same conduct.
      I would also not rule out that some of Appellee’s acts may have been directed toward separate crimes, i.e., variously, to incite his father, his mother, and Ms. Mroz to commit perjury. See generally Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 614 Pa. 664, 674, 39 A.3d 977, 983 (2012) (plurality) (discussing the "narrow view of the object crime” taken by the Court in past decisions). In this respect, I note only that the present appeal has not been framed in a way that requires sifting through fact-bound matters of this sort.

      . I acknowledge that there is a trend toward diluting the rule of lenity. See, e.g., Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 138-39, 118 S.Ct. 1911, 1919, 141 L.Ed.2d 111 (1998) (indicating that the rule applies only when a criminal statute contains a “grievous ambiguity or uncertainty,” and "only if, after seizing eveiything from which aid can be derived,” the Court “can make 'no more than a guess as to what Congress intended’ ” (citations omitted)). For my own part, given the substantial liberty interests involved, I remain a closer adherent to the more traditional formulations. See, e.g., United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. 76, 105, 5 Wheat. 76, 5 L.Ed. 37 (1820) ("probability is not a guide which a court, in construing a penal statute, can safely take.”).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    143 A.3d 929
    Richard ULRICH, Appellant v. Governor Tom WOLF, Secretary John Wetzel, Superintendent Tammy Ferguson, Appellees.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Aug. 15, 2016.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 15th day of August, 2016, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED.


text:
    143 A.3d 929
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Damion WALKER, Appellee.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Aug. 15, 2016.
    Hugh J. Burns, Jr., Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, for appellant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
    Berto M. Elmore, for appellee Damion Walker.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 15th day of August, 2016, the Order of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas is AFFIRMED.


text:
    144 A.3d 92
    George Ivan LOPEZ, Appellant v. PA. Department of Corrections, Commissioner, John WETZEL, PA. Governor, Tom Corbett, Superintendent, Louis S. Folino, Jane and John Doe, Appellees.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Aug. 15, 2016.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 15th day of August, 2016, the order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED.


text:
    144 A.3d 92
    In re ESTATE OF Alfred E. PLANCE, Jr., Deceased. Petition of Joy Plance.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Aug. 16, 2016,
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 16th day of August, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:

(1) When a property owner purports to transfer land to a trust, names himself as trustee, and retains possession of the deed, what is required to deliver the deed and effectuate the conveyance to the trust, and what party bears the burden of proving that the deed was executed and delivered?
(2) If a property owner effectively conveys land to trust for which he also serves as trustee, and he does not record the deed and retains possession of it, how does the recording statute apply to the property owner’s subsequent conveyance of the land, in his individual capacity, to himself and his spouse as tenants by the entireties, when the latter deed is duly recorded and the spouse had no notice of the prior conveyance to the trust, but paid only nominal consideration?
(3) When the Orphans’ Court grants a petition to probate a photocopy of a will, and an opposing party did not respond to the petition or appeal the Orphans’ Court’s order, but raises a claim regarding the will’s revocation as new matter in a responsive pleading during the estate’s administration, is the claim barred by the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel?


text:
    144 A.3d 92
    In re ADOPTION OF L.B.M., a Minor Petition of J.P., Mother In re Adoption of A.D.M., a Minor Petition of J.P., Mother.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Aug. 18, 2016.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

(1) Whether the trial court erred in not appointing legal counsel for the children in a contested, involuntary termination of parental rights hearing despite the clear mandate of 23 Pa.C.S. § 2313(a) and left the children without counsel to advocate on their behalf due to the guardian ad litem’s position being diametrically opposed to the children’s position?
(2) Whether the order of the trial court terminating the parental rights of petitioner under Sections 2511(a)(2), 2511(a)(5) and 2511(a)(8) of the Adoption Act were supported by clear and convincing evidence when petitioner has remedied the conditions that led to the initial placement, had made substantial strides in housing and employment and there was evidence of a strong bond between petitioner and in light of the trial court’s previous decision that termination would be harmful to the children?


text:
    144 A.3d 93
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner, v. Angel Anthony RESTO, Respondent.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Aug. 23, 2016.
   ORDER

AND NOW, this 23rd day of August, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as set forth by the Commonwealth, is as follows:

Did the Pennsylvania Superior Court err in holding that the mandatory minimum sentence found in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9718(a)(3) [is] unconstitutional in light of Alleyne v. United States [— U.S.-], 133 S.Ct. 2151 [186 L.Ed.2d 314] (2013), despite that statutory provision calling for no facts to be found beyond simply being convicted of the enumerated offense?

This matter is to be listed together with Commonwealth v. Bragg, 67 EAL 2016, Commonwealth v. Macklin, 288 MAL 2015, and Commonwealth v. Sachette, 973 MAL 2015, for oral argument purposes only.

Justice WECHT did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.


text:
    144 A.3d 925
    Ricardo JEREMIAH, Petitioner v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR the CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Respondent.
    No. 86 EM 2016.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    July 27, 2016.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 27th day of July, 2016, the Application for Leave to File Original Process and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus are GRANTED. The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is DIRECTED to adjudicate Petitioner’s pending filings within 90 days. The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to serve this order on the President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.

Justice MUNDY did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.


text:
    144 A.3d 925
    James PARKER, Petitioner, v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, Respondent.
    No. 92 EM 2016.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    July 27, 2016.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 27th day of July, 2016, the Application for Leave to File Original Process and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Extraordinary Relief, to the extent it seeks a writ of mandamus, are GRANTED. The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is DIRECTED to adjudicate Petitioner’s pending filings within 90 day. Finally, the Pro-thonotary is DIRECTED to serve this order on the President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.

Justice MUNDY did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.


text:
    144 A.3d 925
    Ann COUGHLIN, Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas Coughlin, Deceased, Petitioner v. Ummu MASSAQUOI, Respondent.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Aug. 24, 2016.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 24th day of August, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

In a civil trial brought on behalf of a pedestrian who was killed by a motorist, is it reversible error where the defendant motorist admits evidence of the pedestrian’s uncorroborated post-mortem blood alcohol content (BAC) by way of a toxicology expert who merely explains the uncorroborated BAC in terms of how an equivalent BAC would render an “average” person unfit to cross the street?


text:
    144 A.3d 926
    Matthew RANCOSKY, Administrator DBN of the Estate of Leann Rancosky and Matthew Rancosky, Executor of the Estate of Martin L. Rancosky, Respondent, v. WASHINGTON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, as Successor by Merger to Conseco Health Insurance Company, formerly known as Capital American Life Insurance Company, Petitioner.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Aug. 30, 2016.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 30th day of August, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue[s] set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue[s], as stated by petitioner, is:

Whether this Court should ratify the requirements of Terletsky v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 437 Pa.Super. 108, 649 A.2d 680 (1994), appeal denied, 540 Pa. 641, 659 A.2d 560 (1995), for establishing insurer bad faith under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8371, and assuming the answer to be in the affirmative, whether the Superior Court erred in holding that Terletsky factor of a “motive of self-interest or ill-will” is merely a discretionary consideration rather than a mandatory prerequisite to proving bad faith?


author: Justice DONOHUE.

text:
    144 A.3d 1270
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Manuel SEPULVEDA, Appellant.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Submitted March 24, 2016.
    Decided Aug. 15, 2016.

      Jesse David Abrams-Morley, Stuart Brian Lev, Federal Community Defender Office, for Manuel Marcus Sepulveda, Appellant.
    Mark S. Matthews, Amy Zapp, for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee.
    SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ.
   OPINION

Justice DONOHUE.

This capital appeal, filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546 (“PCRA”), returns following our remand of the case to the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas (“PCRA court”). At issue in this appeal is whether, following remand from an appellate court with specific instructions, a PCRA court may treat new claims raised by the petitioner, which are outside the scope of the remand order, as amending the petitioner’s first, timely PCRA petition. We conclude that because the PCRA petition has been fully adjudicated, and because the PCRA court is required to proceed in conformance with the remand order, the PCRA court is without authority to permit amendment.

To properly frame our discussion, a summary of the relevant facts and procedural history is necessary. On November 22, 2002, a jury convicted Manuel Sepulveda (“Sepulveda”) of two counts of first-degree murder and related charges for the deaths of John Mendez (“Mendez”) and Ricardo Lopez (“Lopez”). The jury sentenced Sepulveda to death for each of the murders.

Sepulveda’s defense at trial was that the double homicide was justified based on his subjective, but unreasonable, belief that he was acting in the defense of others. Pursuant to this defense, Sepulveda claimed that he was only guilty of voluntary manslaughter. See Sepulveda II, 55 A.3d at 1121 & n. 11; 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 506, 2503(b). At the time of the murders, Sepulveda resided in the home of Daniel Heleva (“Heleva”) and Robyn Otto (“Otto”) with, inter alia, their two minor children. Sepulveda was responsible for watching the children while Heleva and Otto worked.

According to Sepulveda’s testimony at trial, just prior to the murders, Otto told Sepulveda that “she was scared [Mendez] was going to do something to her and the kids.” N.T., 11/21/2002, at 634. Sepulveda then joined Heleva, Mendez and Lopez in the kitchen. The men got into an argument and, per Sepulveda, Mendez began “throwing punches at Heleva” and Lopez “jumped in.” Id. Sepulveda testified that he shot Lopez and Mendez to protect Heleva and the children. Id. at 635-36, 672. Although Otto testified, as a witness for the Commonwealth, at Sepulveda’s trial, trial counsel did not cross-examine her about her alleged fear of Mendez or the threats Sepulveda testified that Mendez made. See generally N.T., 11/20/2002, at 598-615.

Following sentencing, Sepulveda filed a direct appeal to this Court. On August 19, 2004, we affirmed his judgment of sentence. The United States Supreme Court denied his request for certiorari on February 21, 2006.

Sepulveda thereafter filed a timely pro se PCRA petition. Three attorneys from the Federal Community Defender Office (“FCDO”) entered their appearances on Sepulveda’s behalf and filed an amended PCRA petition on January 2, 2007, raising fourteen claims in 386 averments spanning nearly 150 pages. Prior to the hearings held on this petition, one of Sepulveda’s FCDO attorneys (Keisha Hudson, Esquire) drafted an affidavit detailing two in-person interviews she had with Otto. The affidavit detailed Sepulveda’s drug use at the time of the murders, as well as her acknowledgment that prior to the murders, she told Sepulveda that Mendez had previously threatened to burn down the house with her and her children inside; Sepulveda knew that Otto feared Mendez; that, like Otto, Sepulveda was also “convinced ... that something bad was going to happen and that the kids were going to get hurt”; and that he participated in the murders to protect Otto and her children. PCRA Exhibit D-ll, 6/11/2007, ¶¶ 9,11,13. In the same unsigned affidavit, Otto also indicated that she had made a deal with the District Attorney to testify against Sepulveda and Heleva and in exchange, she could plead guilty only to child endangerment and she was assured that her children would be placed in the care of family members; otherwise, the District Attorney told her she would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, her children would be placed in foster care and her parental rights would be terminated in fifteen months. Id., ¶ 16. Otto did not sign the affidavit, but made several alterations to its content, initialing each change that she made.

Despite having this information prior to the 2007 PCRA hearings, the FCDO did not raise any PCRA claims pertaining to Otto’s belief that Sepulveda committed the killings to protect her children or the Commonwealth’s pretrial knowledge of her belief. Further, at the 2007 PCRA hearings, the FCDO limited its questioning of Otto to her knowledge of Sepulveda’s drug use and his behavior when he was high. N.T., 6/11/2007, at 14-17. Although the FCDO confronted Otto with her unsigned affidavit, counsel asked no questions about the substance of it. Counsel only asked Otto why she did not sign the affidavit, and she explained that she was afraid; she had lost custody of her children as a result of this ordeal and she wanted to reunify with them. N.T., 6/11/2007, at 22. She stated that she nonetheless “wanted to help” Sepulveda. Id.

The 2007 PCRA hearings proceeded over four days, during which the court heard from fifteen witnesses, three of whom testified as experts, and all of whom were called to testify on Sepulveda’s behalf. Following the hearing, the PCRA court granted the FCDO permission to file another amended PCRA petition, which, once again, did not include the claims at issue in this appeal. Thereafter, in a seventy-page written opinion, the PCRA court addressed each of the arguments raised, and ultimately denied Sepulveda’s request for relief.

Sepulveda, with the continued assistance of his PCDO counsel, appealed the decision to this Court, raising fourteen issues and sub-issues. In a fifty-three-page opinion, we detailed the facts of record and addressed each of the arguments raised. See Sepulveda II, 55 A,3d at 1118-51. We agreed with the PCRA court’s denial of relief on all but one issue — whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present at Sepulveda’s penalty hearing evidence of his mental health diagnoses and traumatic childhood. We found that the claim had arguable merit, as Sepulveda’s trial counsel did not conduct a reasonable investigation into his background to discern the existence of possible mitigating evidence, and that counsel lacked a reasonable basis for his deficient performance. Id at 1130. Because the question of whether trial counsel’s performance prejudiced Sepulveda was not “self-evident,” and “require[d] careful analysis of prejudice in the specific factual context of the case,” we remanded the prejudice determination to the PCRA court, which could be “assisted by relevant advocacy from both sides.” Id. at 1131.

This Court, sua sponte, also instructed the PCRA court on remand to address an “administrative matter”:

If federal funds were used to litigate the PCRA below — and the number of FCDO lawyers and witnesses involved, and the extent of the pleadings, suggest the undertaking was managed with federal funds — the participation of the FCDO in the case may well be unauthorized by federal court order or federal law. Accordingly, on remand, the PCRA court is directed to determine whether to formally appoint appropriate post-conviction counsel and to consider whether the FCDO may or should lawfully represent appellant in this state capital PCRA proceeding. See 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2) (authorizing appointment of counsel to indigent state defendants actively pursuing federal habeas corpus relief from death sentence).

Id. (italicization omitted).

On February 21, 2013, the FCDO removed the proceedings related to the propriety of its representation of Sepulveda to the federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a). On August 16, 2013, the federal district court granted the Commonwealth’s motion to remand the proceeding for decision on the issue by the state court. The FCDO appealed that ruling, and the question of the propriety of the FCDO’s representation of Sepulveda was consolidated for decision before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit with various other Pennsylvania cases raising the same concern, as the district courts in these cases “split on the jurisdictional question.” In re Commonwealth’s Motion to Appoint Counsel Against or Directed to Def. Ass’n of Phila., 790 F.3d 457, 461 (3d Cir.2015) (“In re FCDO”), as amended (June 16, 2015), cert. denied sub nom. Pennsylvania v. Def. Ass’n of Phila., — U.S.-, 136 S.Ct. 980, — L.Ed.2d- (2016), and cert. denied sub nom. Pennsylvania v. Fed. Cmty. Def Org. of Philadelphia, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 994, 194 L.Ed.2d 3 (2016).

The PCRA court held its own proceedings in abeyance while awaiting the decision on this issue. During this interim, Sepulveda filed a pro se PCRA petition on October 3, 2014, sounding in “newly discovered evidence,” and appended thereto an amended affidavit signed by Otto. The substance of the affidavit was, in large part, the same as Otto’s unsigned affidavit presented at the June 11, 2007 PCRA hearing, with only minor deletions regarding details of Sepulveda’s and Otto’s drug use and some additional details about their shared fear of Mendez and the Commonwealth’s pretrial knowledge of that fear. In the penultimate paragraph of the affidavit, Otto explained that she did not sign the affidavit in 2007 or testify to the entirety of its contents because she was then attempting to regain custody of her children and she was concerned there would be “repercussions” if she testified to this information. Pro Se PCRA Petition, 10/3/2014, Exhibit A, ¶ 18. Otto stated that she was no longer so restrained, as her youngest child had since turned eighteen. Id. Otto concluded this paragraph by stating; “I also want to be absolutely clear about why this happened. [Sepulveda] did what he did because I told him I was afraid that [Mendez] would follow through on his threats and hurt my children.” Id.

The PCRA court entered an order requiring the clerk of courts to forward Sepulveda’s pro se filing to his counsel pursuant to Rule 576(A)(4) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 576(A)(4); Commonwealth v. Jette, 611 Pa. 166, 23 A.3d 1032, 1044 (2011) (holding that if a criminal defendant is represented by counsel, “the proper response to any pro se pleading is [for the court] to refer the pleading to counsel, and to take no further action on the pro se pleading unless counsel forwards a motion”). On December 8, 2014, Sepulveda filed a pro se motion seeking the removal of counsel and a Grazier hearing. On December 22, 2014, the FCDO filed a motion to withdraw Sepulveda’s request for a Grazier hearing and concomitantly filed in the PCRA court Otto’s amended affidavit that Sepulveda had appended to his October 3, 2014 pro se petition. The PCRA court held a hearing on the Grazier request on February 18, 2015. At that time, Sepulveda confirmed his desire to have the FCDO continue representing him and withdrew his request to proceed pro se. N.T., 2/18/2015, at 21-22. Regarding the new claims implicated by Otto’s amended affidavit the PCRA court stated it would address it along with the question of prejudice remanded from this Court “in one fell swoop,” and scheduled a hearing in the matter for April 20, 2015. Id. at 15, 31-33; PCRA Court Order, 2/20/2015, ¶ 4.

At the April 20 hearing, the PCRA court heard argument on the question remanded by this Court regarding whether Se-pulveda was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to investigate or present mental health mitigation evidence at his penalty hearing. Id. at 6-24. No further evidence was presented by either party on this issue, with the parties agreeing instead to brief their respective positions.

Thereafter, regarding the new claims, Otto testified in conformance with her amended affidavit. Id. at 32, 34-36, 37-38. Otto further testified that she told the District Attorney that she had been afraid of Mendez and feared for her children’s safety, but that neither the Commonwealth nor defense counsel asked her questions about this at trial. Id. at 36-37.

Following the PCRA hearing, Sepulveda filed a counseled motion seeking leave to amend his first, timely PCRA petition “to conform his claims to the evidence presented.” Motion for Leave to Amend PCRA Petition, 4/20/2016, ¶ 10 (citing Pa. R.Crim.P. 905(A)). Appended thereto was a PCRA petition raising claims of after discovered evidence, a Brady violation, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. His after discovered evidence claim consisted, in relevant part, of the statements contained in Otto’s amended affidavit regarding Sepulveda’s knowledge that Otto feared Mendez would harm her children “would have bolstered the credibility of his statement that he sincerely believed he needed to use deadly force against the victims to prevent them from hurting others.” Amended PCRA Petition, 4/20/2015, ¶ 25. Sepulveda contended that this information was “newly discovered” because Otto stated she would not have previously provided this testimony based upon her concerns that it would negatively impact her ability to regain custody of her children. Id., ¶ 29. His Brady claim centered upon the Commonwealth’s failure to disclose to trial counsel Otto’s statement to the District Attorney that she feared Mendez and that Sepulveda was aware of her fear when he committed the killings. Id., ¶¶ 35-41. To the extent his trial counsel was aware of this information, or failed to exercise reasonable diligence to discover it, Sepulveda also claimed that this constituted ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to discover the evidence or present it at trial. Id., ¶¶ 44-52.

The Commonwealth responded, arguing that the PCRA court should not treat the new filing as an amended PCRA petition, but as a second, untimely PCRA petition that failed to satisfy any of the exceptions to the PCRA’s timeliness requirements. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1) (subject to certain, delineated exceptions, the PCRA requires that a petition, “including a second or subsequent petition, be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final”). Sepulveda filed a counseled reply, asserting that his new claims should be considered as amendments to his first, timely PCRA petition. In the alternative, he argued that he satisfied the newly discovered fact exception to the timeliness requirement (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(l)(ii)), as “[n]o amount of effort by Mr. Sepulveda or his counsel could have made Ms. Otto’s children turn 18 any earlier.” Petitioner’s Consolidated Reply Brief in Support of Post>-Conviction Relief, 6/3/2015, at 6. He further claimed that he satisfied the government interference exception to the one-year time bar (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(l)(i)) because “[t]he Commonwealth’s failure to disclose Ms. Otto’s prior statements about her and Mr. Sepulveda’s fear of Mr. Mendez prevented Mr. Sepulveda from raising the claim as well.” Id. Otto signed her affidavit on August 12, 2014, which counsel for Sepulveda argued was the first time the new claims could have been presented, and Sepulveda raised these claims within sixty days thereof in his pro se PCRA petition on October 3, 2014, thus providing the PCRA court jurisdiction to determine the merits of the issues raised. Id. at 6-7; see 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2) (stating that any petition raising an exception to the PCRA’s time bar must be filed within sixty days of the date the petitioner could have first presented the claim.).

On August 14, 2015, the PCRA court entered an order and opinion granting Sepulveda’s request to amend his first, timely PCRA petition, but denying relief on the merits of the claims raised. In the same order, the PCRA court granted Sepulve-da a new penalty hearing based on its conclusion that trial counsel’s failure to investigate and present mental health mitigation evidence prejudiced Sepulveda. The Commonwealth has not challenged the latter determination.

Sepulveda appealed from the PCRA court’s dismissal of his newly raised claims. On appeal before this Court, he asserts that he is entitled to a new guilt-phase trial because “(1) [Sepulveda] presented newly discovered exculpatory evidence that Vould have changed the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced,’ requiring a new trial under both the PCRA and the Due Process Clause, and (2) the Commonwealth suppressed material, exculpatory evidence, in violation of [Se-pulveda]’s right to due process[.]” Sepulveda’s Brief at 1. As it did below, the Commonwealth contends that this was not a proper amendment, and the PCRA court should not have treated the new claims as amending Sepulveda’s first, timely PCRA petition. Commonwealth’s Brief at 24-25. As agreement with this argument would obviate review of the merits of the new claims raised, we begin our analysis here.

In support of its decision to treat the new claims as an amended petition, the PCRA court stated that both the Rules of Criminal Procedure and case law from this Court state that a PCRA court may, in its discretion, permit a defendant to file an amended PCRA petition with previously unraised claims years after the initial, timely filing. PCRA Court Opinion, 8/14/2015, at 17 (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 905(A); Commonwealth v. Flanagan, 578 Pa. 587, 854 A.2d 489, 495-500 (2004)). The PCRA court further found that these circumstances implicate “the efficient administration of justice,” as “it would waste scarce judicial resources” to hold a second sentencing hearing “while a ‘second’ PCRA [petition] based on after discovered evidence would be filed at some future time.” Id. at 18.

Sepulveda agrees, asserting that it was within the PCRA court’s discretion to permit him to amend his first, timely PCRA petition. Sepulveda’s Reply Brief at 4-5 (citing cases and Pa.R.Crim.P. 905(A)). As Rule 905(A) requires the PCRA court to permit the filing of an amended petition “freely ... to achieve substantial justice,” and there is no stated time limit, Sepulveda contends that the Commonwealth failed to provide this Court with a basis to find that the PCRA court abused its discretion by granting Sepulveda leave to amend his first, timely PCRA petition. Id. at 5-6.

In Flanagan, a case relied upon by the PCRA court and Sepulveda, we found no abuse of discretion in a PCRA court’s decision to permit a defendant to amend his PCRA petition and raise new claims eleven years after he filed his initial, timely petition. Flanagan, 854 A.2d at 495-96, 499-500. In Flanagan, however, the defendant’s PCRA claims had never been ruled upon by the PCRA court, let alone any appellate court. At the time Flanagan sought to amend his original, timely PCRA petition, that petition was still pending, unadju-dicated, before the PCRA court. In fact, the Flanagan Court specifically identified this as a factor affecting its assessment of whether the petition could properly be treated as an amendment. We contrasted the procedural posture of Flanagan from those present in Commonwealth v. Rienzi, 573 Pa. 503, 827 A.2d 369 (2003), wherein we concluded that amendment was not proper. See id. at 371 (finding that the Superior Court erred by treating petitioner’s second filing as an amendment to his first PCRA petition, as petitioner had withdrawn his first PCRA petition before the PCRA court, only filing the petition at issue ten months later, at which point there was nothing to “amend”); Flanagan, 854 A.2d at 500 n. 7 (distinguishing Flanagan from Rienzi because “Flanagan’s original petition for collateral relief was never withdrawn or dismissed”). Flanagan, therefore, is inapposite to the case at bar.

So too are the other cases relied upon by Sepulveda in his reply brief. See Sepulveda’s Reply Brief at 5 (citing Commonwealth v. Williams, 573 Pa. 613, 828 A.2d 981, 993 (2003) (holding that because the defendant attempted to withdraw his first, timely pro se PCRA petition without the advice of counsel, and the PCRA court never ruled upon that motion and treated the filing as active, the subsequent petitions filed must be treated as amendments to his first, timely petition); Commonwealth v. Padden, 783 A.2d 299, 308-09 (Pa.Super.2001) (finding an amended PCRA petition filed by appointed counsel following the initial pro se PCRA petition filed by the defendant was not an untimely, second petition “because the [t]rial [c]ourt did not at any time prior to the filing of the amended petition rule on the merits of the claims contained in the initial petition”)).

The PCRA court and Sepulveda are correct that Rule 905(A) gives the PCRA court discretion to “grant leave to amend or withdraw a petition for [PCRA] relief at any time,” and states that “[ajmendment shall be freely allowed to achieve substantial justice.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 905(A). Rule 905(A) was created “to provide PCRA petitioners with a legitimate opportunity to present their claims to the PCRA court in a manner sufficient to avoid dismissal due to a correctable defect in claim pleading or presentation.” Commonwealth v. McGill, 574 Pa. 574, 882 A.2d 1014, 1024 (2003) (citing Commonwealth v. Williams, 566 Pa. 553, 782 A.2d 517, 526-27 (2001)).

Once the PCRA court renders a decision on a PCRA petition, however, that matter is concluded before the PCRA court, having been fully adjudicated by that court, and the order generated is a final order that is appealable by the losing party. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 910 (“An order granting, denying, dismissing, or otherwise finally disposing of a petition for post-conviction collateral relief shall constitute a final order for purposes of appeal.”); Commonwealth v. Bryant, 566 Pa. 307, 780 A.2d 646, 648 (2001). Although liberal amendment of a PCRA petition is, in some circumstances, permitted beyond the one-year timeframe, see, e.g., Flanagan, 854 A.2d at 499-500, Rule 905(A) cannot be construed as permitting the rejuvenation of a PCRA petition that has been fully adjudicated by the PCRA court. We have consistently held that in the absence of permission from this Court, a PCRA petitioner is not entitled to raise new claims following our remand for further PCRA proceedings. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Daniels, 628 Pa. 193, 104 A.3d 267, 285 (2014) (finding a new PCRA claim raised post-remand from this Court to have been waived, as “[t]his Court explicitly limited the subject matter of the remand to the remaining issues already raised by appellees; we neither invited nor authorized appellees to raise additional collateral claims years after expiration of the PCRA time-bar”); Commonwealth v. Spotz, 610 Pa. 17, 18 A.3d 244, 328 (2011) (denying the appellant’s request for remand for the PCRA court to consider issues first raised in a motion for reconsideration, as this would amount to the PCRA court’s consideration of a second, untimely PCRA petition); Commonwealth v. Rainey, 593 Pa. 67, 928 A.2d 215, 226 n. 9 (2007) (stating that because this Court expressly permitted the appellant to raise one new PCRA claim on remand, raising any additional issues post-remand was improper); Commonwealth v. Rush, 576 Pa. 3, 838 A.2d 651, 661 (2003) (remanding the case for further proceedings before the PCRA court, but instructing that this did not open the door for the appellant to raise new PCRA claims on remand).

Our mandate in Sepulveda II did not bestow upon the PCRA court jurisdiction over the entirety of the PCRA petition. Following our complete review on appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, we winnowed down the issues raised by Sepulveda to one identifiable subpart of one claim, which we ordered the PCRA court to consider in “proceedings upon limited remand.” Sepulveda II, 55 A.8d at 1151 (emphasis added). Absent an order specifying otherwise, to construe Rule 905(A) as authorizing expansion of a case after thorough appellate review renders an absurd result. See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1922(1) (in ascertaining the intent of this Court in enacting a procedural rule, we must presume that the result was not intended to be “absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable”).

Moreover, Rule 905(A) cannot be read or interpreted in a vacuum. Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2591 specifically addresses a lower court’s authority on remand. It provides that upon remand from a higher court, the lower court “shall proceed in accordance with the judgment or other order of the appellate court[.]” Pa.R.A.P. 2591. Consequently, the breadth of Rule 905(A) is limited by Pa.R.A.P. 2591. See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1933 (stating that if two provisions conflict, they shall be construed, if possible, so that both may be given effect; if the conflict is irreconcilable, the specific provision prevails and is to be construed as an exception to the general provision).

Our remand order specifically instructed the PCRA court to consider (1) the propriety of the FCDO’s representation of Sepulveda in this matter and (2) whether Sepulveda suffered prejudice by trial counsel’s failure to investigate and present mental health mitigation evidence at the penalty phase. Nonetheless, the PCRA court in this case permitted Sepulveda, on remand, to raise new claims in what it considered to be an amendment to his timely-filed first PCRA petition. While we believe that our case law is clear, to the extent there is any lack of clarity in our prior decisions by their failure to consider Rule 905(A), we specifically hold that a PCRA court does not have discretion to treat new claims raised by a PCRA petitioner as an amended PCRA petition following remand from this Court unless such amendment is expressly authorized in the remand order. Rather, application of the liberal amendment policy of Rule 905(A) requires that the PCRA petition in question is still pending before the PCRA court at the time the request for amendment is made. Following a full and final decision by a PCRA court on a PCRA petition, that court no longer has jurisdiction to make any determinations related to that petition unless, following appeal, the appellate court remands the case for further proceedings in the lower court. In such circumstances, the PCRA court may only act in accordance with the dictates of the remand order. The PCRA court does not have the authority or the discretion to permit a petitioner to raise new claims outside the scope of the remand order and to treat those new claims as an amendment to an adjudicated PCRA petition.

In the case at bar, the PCRA fully addressed the issues raised in Sepulveda’s first, timely PCRA petition (which included several amendments) and rendered a final decision on that petition in 2007. Sepulveda appealed from the final order disposing of his first PCRA petition to this Court. After thoroughly considering all of the issues presented on appeal, this Court issued an order remanding the case to the PCRA court for its consideration of two specific and discrete issues. By permitting Sepulveda to amend his otherwise finally decided PCRA petition with new, previously unraised claims, the PCRA court exceeded the scope of our remand order and the scope of its authority. We therefore vacate the portion of the August 14, 2015 PCRA court order granting Sepulveda permission to amend his PCRA petition and deciding the merits of the claims raised.

Order vacated in part. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Chief Justice SAYLOR and Justices BAER, TODD, DOUGHERTY, WECHT and MUNDY join the opinion.

      . We have jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9546(d).

      . The background of the case is set forth in greater detail in the two opinions previously issued by this Court in this matter. See Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 579 Pa. 217, 855 A.2d 783, 786-89 (2004) (plurality) (“Sepulveda I"), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1169, 126 S.Ct. 1330, 164 L,Ed.2d 47 (2006); Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 618 Pa. 262, 55 A.3d 1108, 1115-16 (2012) (“Sepulveda II’’).

      . The evidence presented at trial of how the murders occurred was as follows:
      As the four men were sitting around the kitchen table, another argument erupted, at which point [Sepulveda] grabbed a .12 gauge shotgun and shot Mendez in the stomach. He then shot Lopez in the side. Lopez collapsed on the floor. [Sepulveda] then placed the gun on Lopez’s back and fired, killing him. Mendez escaped from the kitchen and ran upstairs. [Sepulveda] then chased him upstairs where he shot him a second time. Mendez was able to exit the house and flee to a neighbor’s house. [Sepulveda] and Heleva followed him, entered the neighbor's property, seized Mendez, and dragged him back to Heleva's house.... After the men dragged Mendez back to the house, [Sepulveda] struck him with a hatchet type of weapon, killing him. There was no evidence that either victim had, or displayed, a firearm when [Sepulveda] murdered them.
      sjs ⅜ ⅜
      Police found the dead bodies of Lopez and Mendez in the basement. The police found Lopez beneath slabs of insulation and dry wall material, with his pants pulled to his ankles. They found Mendez beneath a pile of laundry, stripped naked with his thumb in his mouth and with a rubber bungee cord wrapped tightly around his neck.

        Sepulveda II, 55 A.3d at 1115; see also Sepulveda I, 855 A.2d at 787.

      . For each count of murder, the jury found one aggravating circumstance (Sepulveda committed another murder prior to or at the time of the murder) and two mitigating circumstances (Sepulveda's age — twenty-two — at the time of the murders and that he did not have a significant history of criminal convictions). See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 971 l(d)(l 1), (e)(1), (4). The jury unanimously found that the aggravating circumstance outweighed the mitigating circumstances and returned two sentences of death. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9711(c)(l)(vi).

      . The house was a drug den, with drug use and sales occurring therein night and day. The record reflects that others also lived there and that numerous people (approximately twenty-five to thirty people per day) came and went from the house at all hours. Sepulveda began using drugs prior to moving in with Heleva and Otto, but his crack-cocaine addiction escalated while living in the house. At the time of the murders, Sepulveda was reportedly smoking the drug throughout the day and night, using between a quarter and a half a gram at a time.

      . The affidavit is not dated, and Attorney Hudson did not indicate on the cover page when the in-person interviews with Otto occurred. See PCRA Exhibit D-ll. We therefore only know that the FCDO obtained this information and drafted the unsigned affidavit sometime prior to Otto testifying at the June 11, 2007 PCRA hearing.

      . This is in stark contrast to the testimony Otto provided at Sepulveda’s trial, at which time she stated that Mendez was her friend — he referred to her as "ma,” and her ldds referred to him as "Uncle Johnny” — and that she tried to help him and protect and save him from Heleva and Sepulveda on the night Mendez was murdered. N.T., 11/20/2002, at 575, 591-92. She also stated at that time that she feared Heleva and Sepulveda, not Mendez. Id. at 596.

      . Otto’s children were in foster care, in the custody of Monroe County Children and Youth, until August 15, 2002, at which time Heleva's parents became the children’s legal custodians. N.T., 4/20/2015, at 48.

      . For a court to find that counsel provided ineffective assistance, a PCRA petitioner must plead and prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) the claim has arguable merit; (2) counsel had no reasonable basis designed to advance the petitioner’s interest for his/her act or omission; and (3) the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result, which, for PCRA purposes, means but for counsel’s act or omission, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different. Commonwealth v. Treiber, 632 Pa. 449, 121 A.3d 435, 445 (2015) (citations omitted).

      . The record reflects that as a child, Sepulveda regularly observed violence, both in his home and in the neighborhoods in which he lived, and was also the victim of physical abuse at his father's hands. N.T., 6/11/2007, at 41-42, 45-46; N.T., 6/13/2007, at 13. Mental health professionals who assessed Sepulveda prior to the 2007 PCRA hearings diagnosed him with chronic posttraumatic stress disorder, cognitive disorder not otherwise specified, polysubstance abuse, and cocaine induced psychosis, and further concluded that he suffered from "mild neuropsychological deficits.” N.T., 6/11/2007, at 38-39; N.T., 6/12/2007, at 60; N.T., 6/13/2007, at 12.

      . On June 12, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, issued its decision. It held that the FCDO’s removal of this question to federal court was proper. In re FCDO, 790 F.3d at 474-75. On the merits of the question of whether the Commonwealth could seek the FCDO’s disqualification from representing criminal defendants in state PCRA matters, the court granted the FCDO’s motion to dismiss. See F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) ("failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted”). The court found that, to the extent the Commonwealth brought the disqualification actions under federal law (18 U.S.C. §§ 3006A, 3599), the Commonwealth lacked a private right of action. In re FCDO, 790 F.3d at 475. In the alternative, if the Commonwealth brought the disqualification proceedings pursuant to Article V, Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution (relating to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s power to proscribe and enforce rules of procedure and the conduct of the Pennsylvania courts), the court concluded that they conflict with federal law and are thus preempted:
      ... Congress has authorized grants to Community Defender Organizations [of which the FCDO is one] and tasked the [Administrative Office of the United States Courts ("AO”) ] with supervising grant payments. The disqualification proceedings, however, seek to supplant the AO by allowing the Commonwealth’s courts to determine whether a Community Defender Organization has complied with the terms of its federal grants and to attach consequences to noncompliance.
      Significantly, the disqualification proceedings are preempted whether or not federal law authorizes the [FCDO] to use grant funds for certain purposes in PCRA cases. If the [FCDO] is authorized to use grant funds, the Commonwealth plainly cannot disqualify it for doing so without undermining congressional objectives. But even if the [FCDO] is not authorized to use grant funds, the disqualification proceedings interfere with the regulatory scheme that Congress has created.

        Id. at 476-77 (internal citation omitted).

      . Commonwealth v. Grazier, 552 Pa. 9, 713 A.2d 81 (1998) ("When a waiver of the right to counsel is sought at the post-conviction and appellate stages, an on-the-record determination should be made that the waiver is a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary one.”).

      . Also at the February 18, 2015 proceeding, the Commonwealth stipulated that the FCDO could represent Sepulveda. Despite the fact that decision on this question was a mandate by this Court sua sponte, and not an issue raised by the Commonwealth, the PCRA court found that the Commonwealth's stipulation somehow mooted the question and permitted it to move its PCRA proceedings forward with the FCDO continuing to represent Sepulveda. Nonetheless, our consideration of the propriety of the PCRA court’s conclusion is unnecessary given the Third Circuit’s resolution of the matter. See supra, note 11.

      . The “after discovered evidence” provision of section 9543 grants relief to a PCRA petitioner who successfully proves "[t]he unavailability at the time of trial of exculpatory evidence that has subsequently become available and would have changed the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(vi); see PCRA Opinion, 8/14/2015, at 18-22, For a claim of after discovered evidence, the petitioner must prove that "(1) the evidence has been discovered after trial and it could not have been obtained at or prior to trial through reasonable diligence; (2) the evidence is not cumulative; (3) it is not being used solely to impeach credibility; and (4) it would likely compel a different verdict.” Commonwealth v. Washington, 592 Pa, 698, 927 A.2d 586, 595-96 (2007).

      . Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) ("[T]he suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution,”).

      . To prove prejudice based upon counsel’s failure to present mitigation evidence in a capital penalty-phase trial where the jury found at least one mitigating circumstance, as in the case at bar, "the question is whether there is a reasonable probability that, had the PCRA evidence been adduced at the penalty phase, [the petitioner] would have been able to prove at least one additional mitigating circumstance, and at least one juror would have concluded that the mitigating circumstances collectively outweighed the aggravating ones.” Commonwealth v. Gibson, 610 Pa. 332, 19 A.3d 512, 526 (2011).

      . Rule 905(A) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: "The judge may grant leave to amend or withdraw a petition for post-conviction collateral relief at any time. Amendment shall be freely allowed to achieve substantial justice.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 905(A).

      . When construing a Rule of Criminal Procedure, we utilize the Statutory Construction Act when possible. Pa.R.Crim.P. 101(C). The object of any rule interpretation "is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of” this Court. 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921(a).

      . Indeed, it has long been the law in Pennsylvania that following remand, a lower court is permitted to proceed only in accordance with the remand order. See, e.g., Quaker State Oil Ref. Co. v. Talbot, 322 Pa. 155, 185 A. 586, 588 (1936); see also Levy v. Senate of Pa., 94 A.3d 436, 442 (Pa.Commw.2014) (recognizing "[wjhere a case is remanded for a specific and limited purpose, issues not encompassed within the remand order may not be decided on remand,” as "[a] remand does not permit a litigant a proverbial second bite at the apple”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted), appeal denied, 630 Pa. 738, 106 A.3d 727 (2014).

      . This decision does not affect a PCRA court’s authority to "modify or rescind” its order within thirty days of its entry if neither party has appealed its decision. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505.

      . To hold otherwise would allow "an extra round of collateral attack for certain defendants, unauthorized by the General Assembly,” which this Court has expressly condemned. See Commonwealth v. Holmes, 621 Pa. 595, 79 A.3d 562, 576 (2013).