With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". courts of appeal by referring, in part, to appeals from a trial court’s final orders “that may be taken as a matter of right.” When jurisdiction exists under the constitution, the legislature cannot impose a limitation on that jurisdiction. State v. Jefferson, 758 So.2d 661, 664 (Fla.2000) (“While constitutional jurisdiction cannot be restricted or taken away, it can be enlarged by the Legislature in all cases where such enlargement does not result in a diminution of the constitutional jurisdiction of some other court, or where such enlargement is not forbidden by the Constitution.” (quoting S. Atl. S.S. Co. v. Tutson, 139 Fla. 405, 190 So. 675, 682 (1939)) (internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. Parvin v. Valhalla Props. on Sand Key, LLC, 949 So.2d 1167, 1168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>). Thus, despite the apparent limitation in

A: holding a per curiam affirmance from a florida district court of appeal is not renewable by the florida supreme court
B: holding that statute could not grant jurisdiction to dis trict courts of appeal over nonfinal arbitration order because the florida constitution reserved to the florida supreme court the power to define the interlocutory jurisdiction of district courts
C: holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts
D: holding new york could lawfully modify a florida custody decree because florida court had right under florida law to change the decree
B.