and that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective to the extent that they did not object or pursue the issue on appeal. Hampering review of this claim is Elliott’s failure to distinguish between those assertions of prosecutorial misconduct to which trial counsel objected and/or appellate counsel pursued on direct appeal, and those assertions of prosecutorial misconduct to which no objection was lodged. Related thereto, Elliott fails to analyze independently the reasonable basis and prejudice prongs of the ineffective assistance of counsel standard as it relates to each alleged deficiency in trial or appellate counsel’s performance. Such lack of development, in and of itself, could lead to rejection of the claim. See Commonwealth v. Tedford, 598 Pa. 639, 960 A.2d 1, 28 (2008) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, as discussed infra, we have
holding that a federal court may adjudicate claims for which there is no independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction if the nonjurisdictional claims are related to other claims for which the does have jurisdiction holding prosecutorial misconduct claim barred by procedural default holding that the failure to identify and distinguish which claims of prosecutorial misconduct have been previously litigated and which were waived permits rejection of the underlying claims of prosecutorial misconduct which in turn eviscerates the cognizable layered claims holding that prosecutorial misconduct was harmless in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt holding that claims alleging prosecutorial misconduct which were based on facts in the record could have and should have been raised on direct appeal and were thus not cognizable in postconviction proceedings