Nov. 25, 1992 at 6. Instead, it articulated the following standard: In order to prevail on an ineffectiveness claim, appellant, must show that his underlying contention possesses arguable merit, that the course chosen by counsel had no reasonable bases designed to serve his interest, and that counsel’s conduct prejudiced him. If the claim lacks merit, the inquiry ceases, as counsel will not be deemed ineffective for failing to pursue a baseless issue. Id. (internal citations omitted). Applying this standard, the court then concluded that it “had no alternative but to deny defendant’s motion.” Id. It is settled in this circuit that the test used by the Pennsylvania court in determining ineffective assistance of counsel claims is not contrary to Strickland. See Werts, 228 F.3d at 204 (<HOLDING>) See also Jacobs v. Horn, 395 F.3d 92, 106 n. 9
recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel holding strickland two prong test applies to ineffective assistance claims throughout trial including punishment recognizing that strickland applies to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims holding that pennsylvanias test for ineffective assistance of counsel is not contrary to strickland holding that the strickland test applies to claims  that counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal