With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Montalvo, 604 Pa. 386, 986 A.2d 84, 102 (2009). Further, we are not required to analyze the elements of an ineffectiveness claim in any particular order; if a claim fails under any requisite prong, the Court may address that prong first. Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 554 Pa. 31, 720 A.2d 693, 701 (1998). Additionally, counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim. Commonwealth v. Jones, 590 Pa. 202, 912 A.2d 268, 278 (2006). We keep this well-established jurisprudence in mind while examining Appellant’s claims. II. Denial of Right to Counsel In his first issue, Appellant ignores his violent attack on Attorney Burns during the proceeding on May 13, 2013, and his request to proceed pro se, and contends that the PCRA court denie .2d 693, 699 (1998) (<HOLDING>)). The Commonwealth responds that Appellant’s

A: holding that under section 9543a1 a pcra petitioner is not eligible for relief where the petitioner has completed serving the sentence before final adjudication on the petition
B: holding that the denial of pcra relief cannot stand unless the petitioner was afforded the assistance of counsel
C: holding that a pcra petitioner may not raise new claims by merely supplementing a pending pcra petition without court authorization because to do so would wrongly subvert the time limitation and serial petition restrictions of the pcra
D: holding that the constitutional nature of the violations alleged in a pcra petition has no effect on the application of the pcra jurisdictional time bar
B.