I. Whether the evidence was sufficient to [sustain] a conviction of criminal homicide, criminal conspiracy to commit homicide where the Commonwealth failed to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of a conspiratorial agreement, the specific intent of which was to commit criminal homicide, prior to the death of Ervin Holton?

2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to [sustain] a conviction of criminal homicide or criminal conspiracy to commit homicide where the Commonwealth conceded at trial that [Appellant] was not a shoote r, and offered no evidence of his presence at the scene , when, a conviction of murder cannot stand without sufficient evidence of accomplice liability?

3. Whether the trial court erred in granting the Commonwealth's motion in limine to present evidence of [Appellant's] drug dealing and prior drug arrests under [Pa.R.E.] 404(b) by order and opinion on November 14, 2016?

4. Whether the trial court erred in admitting 911 tapes referencing a Honda Odyssey without affording the Appellant his right to cross-examination guaranteed and by the confrontation clause of the United States Constitution?

5. Whether this honorable court erred when it barred the defense from cross-examining James Martin on his status as a sex offender registrant?

6. Whether this honorable court erred when it failed to grant Appellant's request for a mistrial due to Nicole Green[e]'s testimony that Appellant was incarcerated during most of the time they dated?

7. Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence?

8. Whether the trial court erred over Appellant's objection in denying Appellant's motion for severance, failing to order separate trials, and determining that [] Appellant would not be prejudiced by being tried with his co-defendant Omar Robinson[?]

9. Whether the trial court erred in failing to grant Appellant's motion for change of venue/venire where the pretrial publicity was sustained, pervasive, inflammatory, and inculpatory and there was a presumption of prejudice in selecting a fair and impartial jury from Northampton County?

10. Whether the trial court erred in failing to grant Appellant's] motion to suppress statements made to police on December 5, 2012 and December 4, 2014?

II. Whether the sentence of the court to a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole for First[-]Degree Murder is unlawful where the underlying statute is unconstitutional and the sentencing issue was not presented to the jury?

12. Whether the mandatory sentence of Appellant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for murder of the first degree violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment?

13. Whether the court erred in denying Appellant's request to instruct the jury that in Pennsylvania

Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction of criminal homicide, criminal conspiracy to commit homicide