proof and the manner of weighing aggravating circumstances against the mitigating circumstances when deliberating on the sentence to be imposed. Finally, as noted, Appellant offers no authority requiring trial courts to list each category of catchall mitigation evidence on the verdict slip. In fact, case law of this Court has held to the contrary. See Commonwealth v. Miller, 560 Pa. 500, 746 A.2d 592, 604 (2000) (rejecting claim that a verdict slip that was identical to the form mandated by Pa.R.Crim.P. 358A [renumbered as Pa.R.Crim.P. 808] prevented the jury from considering mitigation evidence presented by the defendant because such evidence was not specifically listed on the form or enumerated in the jury charge); see also Commonwealth v. Reyes, 600 Pa. 45, 963 A.2d 436, 442 (2009) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Appellant is not entitled to
holding that the jurys finding of various factors supporting the catchall mitigating circumstance set forth at 42 pacs  9711e8 did not metamorphose those factors into additional statutory mitigators holding that trial court must consider both statutory and nonstatutory mitigating factors holding imposition of the death penalty proportionate where the trial court found two aggravating circumstances ccp and contemporaneous murder two statutory mitigating factors and a number of nonstatutory mitigating factors recognizing same factors holding that override was not arbitrary and discriminatory where jurys recommendation of life imprisonment may have been the product of defense counsels highly impassioned closing argument where defendant had a prior criminal history and where no valid statutory mitigating factors and three statutory aggravating factors existed