receipt of the Carnegie Award and testimony about his history of nonviolence as related by Appellant’s mother. As a result, counsels’ decision not to present evidence concerning Appellant’s austere background was grounded in a reasonable strategy designed to effectuate Appellant’s interest. Similarly, regarding Appellant’s assertions that counsel should have uncovered evidence that he was abused as a child, such evidence would not have fit into counsel’s strategy of portraying Appellant as a heroic, nonviolent individual. Appellant, therefore, has not proven the lack of a reasonable basis prong of the test for ineffectiveness with regard to life history mitigation. See Pierce, 527 A.2d at 975. See also Bracey, 568 Pa. 264, 795 A.2d 935; Commonwealth v. Basemore, 744 A.2d at 735 (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 511 Pa. 299, 513
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 counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless claim holding trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless issue holding that counsel cannot be found ineffective for failing to pursue a particular mitigating factor where despite a reasonable investigation by counsel counsel was not put on notice of any such mitigating evidence holding counsel ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence