With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Cardinal’s identification of Elliott as the perpetrator by having her concede that she told police that she could not give a positive identification of Elliott for various reasons including that she was unsure, had a bad memory, and did not look at Elliott’s face. N.T., Oct. 26,1994, at 90-99. Thus, Elliott brings to light no evidence that trial counsel would have been able to offer had he further investigated the prior bad acts relating to Berson, Gogos, or Cardinal, which would have altered the outcome of his trial. Finding no prejudice arising from trial counsel’s alleged failure to investigate the prior bad act witnesses, we conclude that appellate counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to pursue such issue. See Commonwealth v. Jones, 590 Pa. 202, 912 A.2d 268, 278 (2006) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Elliott was properly denied

A: holding that an attorney is not ineffective for failing to make a meritless objection
B: holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim
C: holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel
D: holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failure to present cumulative evidence
B.