With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in April 2004, after which it denied appellant’s requests for an arrest of judgment or new trial, but granted appellant’s motion for a new penalty hearing. The court concluded that mitigation counsel had rendered ineffective assistance during his closing argument. The Commonwealth appealed the trial court’s order granting a new penalty phase hearing and appellant likewise filed an appeal in which he challenged the trial court’s denial of relief on all other claims set forth in his post-sentence motions. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court’s orders granting a new penalty hearing and denying all other claims. In all instances in which the death penalty is imposed, this Court begins its review with an inquiry into the sufficiency of .the evidence 88 A.2d 564, 568 (2005) (<HOLDING>). This case is before us on direct appeal

A: holding that res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to issues resolved by arbitration where there has been a final determination on the merits notwithstanding a lack of confirmation of the award citations omitted
B: holding that in some circumstances a sentence on one count may be increased after the sentence on a similar or related count has been vacated on appeal
C: holding that appellate court may only review issues actually presented to and considered by the trial court
D: holding guilt phase issues shall be resolved by this court even if death sentence has been vacated by trial court on collateral review
D.