to break with these cases, we vacate Mr. Veon’s judgment of sentence, and we remand for a new trial on conflict of interest or for other proceedings consistent with this opinion. B. Finally, we note that we have disturbed the sentencing scheme as to conflict of interest, which is only one of several counts for which the trial court imposed its restitutionary sentence, and have also deemed illegal the imposition of any resti-tutionary sanction in favor of the Commonwealth. This leaves a comprehensive sentencing scheme unmoored from its foundation, such that we must afford the trial court the opportunity to revisit its entire sentencing approach and determine what modifications, if any, are warranted in light of our ruling. See Commonwealth v. Wolfe, — Pa. —, 140 A.3d 651, 663 n.7 (2016) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, we vacate Mr. Veon’s entire
holding where a defendant successfully challenges a conviction on appeal jeopardy does not terminate holding that when congress amends statutes our decisions that rely on the older versions of the statutes must be reevaluated in light of the amended statute holding that the entire sentencing plan must be reevaluated in instances in which a defendant successfully challenges one of several interdependent sentences holding that one agreement cannot be taken to be several agreements and therefore several conspiracies because the agreement envisages the violation of several statutes rather than one holding that where the appellants listed challenges in the statement of issues but failed to brief them the challenges were waived