With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". § 3735.1; see also Commonwealth v. Caine, 453 Pa.Super. 235, 683 A.2d 890 (1996) (en banc) (“[h]omicide by vehicle while driving under the influence consists of three elements; [1] a driving under the influence conviction, [2] the death of another person, and [3] the death as a direct result of driving under the influence”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Therefore, the statutory elements of DUI are completely subsumed within the crimes of both homicide by motor vehicle while DUI and aggravated assault by vehicle while DUI. As such, for sentencing purposes, Appellant’s DUI conviction merged with both her homicide by motor vehicle while DUI and aggravated assault by vehicle while DUI convictions. See also Commonwealth v. Schmohl, 975 A.2d 1144, 1150 (Pa.Super.2009) (<HOLDING>). In the case at bar, by sentencing Appellant

A: holding that the defendant was not guilty of felony dui because the state was unable to prove that the defendant had three prior dui convictions but remanding the case to the circuit court for resentencing without reference to any potential jurisdictional problem
B: holding state can obtain dui conviction by proving circumstantially that defendant drove while intoxicated to place where he relinquished actual physical control of vehicle
C: holding that conviction for unauthorized use of vehicle merges with conviction for theft of same vehicle
D: holding that dui conviction merges with aggravat ed assault by vehicle while dui conviction
D.