With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1988, when Section 9711(h) required a remand for imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment in instances where this Court vacated a defendant’s sentence of death, he would not have been subjected to the possibility of a second death sentence under the amended version of Section 9711. Appellant’s Brief at 42. Thus, Appellant claims he is subjected to harsher punishment than individuals who had their death sentences vacated by this Court prior to 1988. This Court, however, has repeatedly rejected the argument that “retroactive” application of Section 9711(h)(4) offends a defendant’s due process and equal protection rights, and we have held that application of Section 9711(h)(4) is constitutionally permissible. See Commonwealth v. Chambers, 546 Pa. 870, 381-82, 685 A.2d 96, 102 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Young, 536 Pa. 57, 66, 637

A: holding that a defendant has a constitutional right to counsel as a matter of right on direct appeal
B: holding that retroactive application of amended guidelines provision is not plain error
C: holding that appellant had waived any objection to an instruction that he had himself introduced and which was amended by the state without objection from appellant
D: holding that application of section 9711h as amended did not deprive appellant of any constitutional right
D.