81 did not have a traffic control device posted indicating any restrictions or prohibitions for travel. (Notes of testimony, 10/6/05 at 11-12; trial court opinion, 12/14/05 at 3 n. 4.) Without such a posting, appellant claims the trial court erred in finding her guilty of the violation when she was not properly afforded notice of the restriction. ¶ 5 The parties have not cited and we have been unable to discover any legislative history regarding the statute in question. We are thus presented with a preliminary issue of statutory interpretation. Statutory interpretation is an issue of law over which we exercise plenary review. Commonwealth v. Magliocco, 584 Pa. 244, 247, 883 A.2d 479, 481 (2005); see also Commonwealth v. Dellisanti, 583 Pa. 106, 112 n. 8, 876 A.2d 366, 369 n. 8 (2005) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 6 In interpreting a statute, we are guided
holding that appellate court may only review issues actually presented to and considered by the trial court holding that this court may address an issue not ruled on by the trial court if it presents a question of law and all the facts necessary for its resolution have been presented holding that statutory construction is a question of law which this court reviews de novo recognizing that what this court had treated as an issue of sufficiency actually presented a question of statutory construction holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury