while subject to a court order restricting his behavior towards the victim) on the ground that he never received formal notice of the PFA order. The Commonwealth concludes that appellate counsel’s strategy of winnowing out the meritless • claims had no adverse impact on the outcome of the appeal. We agree with the Commonwealth that Appellant is not entitled to relief as he has failed to demonstrate any prong of the Pierce standard as it relates to appellate counsel’s performance in failing to preserve the enumerated eleven issues. First, Appellant includes ho substantive legal analysis of the underlying claims and, thus, has failed to demonstrate that the claims of appellate counsel ineffectiveness were of arguable merit. Commonwealth v. Paddy, 609 Pa. 272, 15 A.3d 431, 443 (2011) (<HOLDING>). Further, Appellant fails to demonstrate the
holding that derivative ineffectiveness claims are distinct sixth amendment claims albeit they may fail on the arguable merit or prejudice prong for the reasons discussed on direct appeal holding that if the petitioner cannot prove the arguable merit of underlying claim the derivative claim of appellate counsel ineffectiveness of necessity must fail holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel holding that the appellate standard of review of ineffectiveness claim is de novo holding that ineffectiveness claims raised in a pcra petition are distinct from those claims raised on direct appeal and must be reviewed under the threeprong test of pierce but recognizing that in many instances the claim may ultimately fail on the arguable merit or prejudice prong for the reasons discussed on direct appeal