With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". or sentencing, when it was cognizable and the trial court had jurisdiction, the Setzer appellant had waived his right to raise the issue. Id. (“[W]e find it clear that practical considerations dictate that this issue be deemed waived when, as in the instant case, it is not raised until almost two years after disposition of the charges which gave rise to the confiscation of property.”); Commonwealth v. Romberger, 474 Pa. 190, 378 A.2d 283, 286 (1977) (“It is a fundamental doctrine in this jurisdiction that where an issue is cognizable in a given proceeding and is not raised it is waived and will not be considered on a review of that proceeding.”). The Commonwealth Court has likewise previously applied a waiver analysis in the same circumstances. One 1990 Dodge Ram Van, 751 A.2d at 1237 (<HOLDING>). The trial court in this case agreed with the

A: holding that appellant waived issue by failing to raise it in opening brief
B: holding that a defendant waived a sentencing issue by failing to object in district court
C: holding the appellant waived the issue of return of property by failing to raise it following trial or sentencing for the underlying crimes
D: holding that because appellant had waived review of constitutional challenge to sentencing statute by failing to raise it at the first opportunity the trial court correctly proceeded to examine whether the appellants trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise constitutional challenges to the sentencing statutes
C.