counsel was appointed, but disagree on whether that training was obtained. A review of the record indicates that Attorney Speice completed more than the requisite six hours of capital case CLE. See Commonwealth Exhibit D, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Continuing Legal Education Board course attendance record dated September 29, 2006 (indicating that Attorney Speice had completed over eight hours of capital case training by April 28, 2005). Moreover, we emphasize that even assuming Attorney Speice did not satisfy Rule 801’s capital case qualifications, such fact alone would not establish his ineffectiveness at Appellant’s trial. Rather, all the prongs of the Strickland/Pierce ineffectiveness standard must be demonstrated. See Commonwealth v. Boxley, 596 Pa. 620, 948 A.2d 742, 747 (2008) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Martin, 607 Pa. 165, 5 A.3d
recognizing rule holding that a defendant whose new trial motion is based on the alleged ineffectiveness of trial counsel may bypass rule 33s sevenday time limit only if his claim that his counsel  was ineffective was based on information unavailable to the defendant at the time of trial holding that a defendant who fails to raise rule 11 error at trial has the burden to satisfy the plainerror rule holding that rule 801 in no way suggests that a defendant is automatically entitled to a new trial if his counsel fails to comply with the educational requirements of the rule holding that appellate rule 66b does not authorize an interlocutory appeal that fails to comply with appellate rule 14