at 616; Rollins, 738 A.2d at 448; Commonwealth v. Howard, 553 Pa. 266, 719 A.2d 233, 238 (1998); Uderra, 706 A.2d at 339-40. Because counsels’ investigation was reasonable, Appellant has not met the second prong of proving ineffectiveness. See Pierce, 567 Pa. 186, 786 A.2d 203, 213. XII. Ineffectiveness Relating to “Good Conduct” in Prison Appellant asserts that evidence tending to show the he was a well-behaved and well-adjusted prisoner, from which the jury could draw favorable inferences regarding Appellant’s character and future conduct as a prisoner, if sentenced to life in prison, is admissible mitigating evidence, and trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present such evidence to the jury. See Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 4, 106 S.Ct. 1669, 90 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) (<HOLDING>). Specifically, Appellant alleges counsel
holding that in reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and draw all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jurys verdict holding that in reviewing sufficiency of evidence in juvenile adjudication the appellate court considers the evidence most favorable to the judgment and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom and affirms if those inferences constitute substantial evidence holding that in reviewing whether there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and draw all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jurys verdict holding that evidence that a petitioner has been a wellbehaved and welladjusted prisoner from which the jury could draw favorable inferences regarding the petitioners character and probable future conduct if sentenced to life in prison is admissible as mitigating evidence holding that testimony regarding witness credibility is prohibited unless it is admissible as character evidence