At approximately 1:30 P.M. on October 17, 1974 Anthony lorio, an undercover narcotics agent for the Bureau of Drug Control of the Pennsylvania Department of Justice, went to 410 Spring Mill Avenue, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, and knocked on the door. Appellant answered the door and Agent lorio, after introducing himself as Tony, stated thаt he was there to obtain some *388 heroin. Appellant stated that he was going to Philadelphia for that purpose and asked Agent lorio how much he wanted. Agent lorio replied that he wanted one bundle, i. e., bеtween twenty-four and thirty bags of heroin. Appellant stated that a bundle would cost $140. Agent lorio agreed on thе price and gave appellant $140. Agent lorio and appellant then left the house together аnd agreed to meet later that afternoon at a MacDonald’s restaurant in West Conshohocken. At approximately 4:40 P.M. a man in a brown Dodge approached Agent lorio and stated, “Follow me. He has your dope.” Agent lorio followed the Dodge to the house at 410 Spring Mill Avenue where he found appеllant and several other persons. Appellant removed a bundle of heroin from his pocket, took out four bags, and gave Agent lorio the rest. Appellant said he kept the four bags for his trouble.
That same day appellant was arrested and charged with possession 1 and delivery 2 of heroin in violation of the Controlled Substаnce, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. On April 24 and 25, 1975 appellant was tried by a jury and found guilty. Post verdict motions were refused, and appellant was sentenced to two to five years in prison on the delivery count with sentence suspended on the possession count.
Appellant now appeals to this court raising four issues. Three of the issues were not raised at trial and are therefore not now properly before us.
Commonwealth v. Reid,
“[Cjounsel’s assistance is deemed constitutionally effective once we are able to conclude that the particular course chosen by counsel had some reasonable basis designed to effectuate his client’s interests. The test is not whether other alternatives were more reasonable, employing a hindsight evaluation of the record. Although weigh the alternativеs we must, the balance tips in favor of a finding of effective assistance as soon as it is determined that triаl counsel’s decisions had any reasonable basis.”
In support of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel appellant points to four alleged errors made by his trial counsel. First appellant contends that his trial counsel was ineffective in not objecting to the court’s charge as to entrapment. After studying the record, we find appellant was not entitled to any charge on entrapment. In
Commonwealth v. Conway,
Secondly, appellant contends thаt his trial counsel was ineffective in not introducing evidence as to appellant’s lack of a criminаl record. Appellant, however, cites no case law, nor could we find any, which would *390 require the introduction of such evidence. Accordingly the failure to introduce such evidence cannot be deemеd ineffective.
Thirdly, appellant contends that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to move for a mistriаl on the basis of remarks directed toward him by the judge in the presence of the jury. Appellant argues that thе comments in question influenced the jury in a prejudicial manner. We disagree. While there are situations where a new trial is necessitated by a judge’s comments, see
Commonwealth v. Horvath,
Lastly, appellant contends that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to raise а merger argument. Appellant, who was convicted of both possession and delivery of heroin, argues that the possession count merges into the delivery count. While under certain circumstances a possеssion count would merge into a delivery count,
Commonwealth v. Williams,
Affirmed.