be cause (1) his argument that there existed evidence that he believes would have proven the mitigating factor set forth at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(e)(2) is not well supported; and (2) even if such evidence did exist, Appellant has failed to show that the establishment of the (e)(2) mitigating factor based on such “evidence” would have had a meaningful impact on his sentence. Finally, we agree with the PCRA court that a revised diagnosis of alcohol dependence in lieu of the diagnosis given to the jury of alcohol abuse and probable dependence is of no moment. There is no basis for the conclusion that this revision, had it occurred, would have caused the jury to weigh differently the mitigating versus aggravating circumstances. See Commonwealth v. Spotz (“Spotz VI”), 18 A.3d 244, 315 (Pa.2011) (<HOLDING>). Because Appellant has not shown that trial
holding that it was permissible to ask whether a juror would consider death sentence if juror determined aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating circumstances holding that dependent upon the circumstances of the case a defendants deportability could be viewed as either a mitigating or an aggravating factor holding that prejudice is shown where a sentencing error may affect the determination of sentence holding imposition of the death penalty proportionate where the trial court found two aggravating circumstances ccp and contemporaneous murder two statutory mitigating factors and a number of nonstatutory mitigating factors holding that prejudice is not shown without establishing that a revised psychological diagnosis would have caused the jury to weigh differently the mitigating versus aggravating circumstances