With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". stresses the PCRA court’s conclusion that the report was replete with “ ‘red flags’ of brain damage that indicated the need for neurop[sy]chological evaluations.” Sattazahn, No. 2194-89, slip op. at 45; accord N.T., January 20, 2005, at 185 (testimony of a clinical psychologist confirming that “there were a lot of red flags of brain damage in this case”). Appellee acknowledges the Commonwealth’s position that the record was not provided in response to a subpoena secured by trial counsel; however, he observes that it was otherwise available in court records from the Schuylkill County third-degree murder conviction, which the Commonwealth used to support an aggravating circumstance. See generally Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 389-90, 125 S.Ct. 2456, 2467, 162 L.Ed.2d 360 (2005) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Appellee emphasizes that the PCRA

A: holding that where defendant failed to object to facts in psi relating to prior conviction the failure to object constituted an admission
B: holding that where the prosecution gives notice that it will rely in aggravation on facts relating to a prior conviction capital defense counsel has an obligation to make a reasonable effort to review the court file pertaining to that conviction
C: holding that defendants have a federal constitutional right to make a collateral attack on a prior conviction only when that conviction was obtained without the assistance of counsel
D: holding that a prior conviction is not final and cannot be used to deny appellant community supervision in the primary offense if appellant still has time to file a motion for new trial in the prior conviction case
B.