With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". should be warned that his statements during sentencing could be used against him in his pending case. See Whitehead, 21 So.3d at 159 (noting that the trial judge “told the defendant that he could say anything he wished, but warned him that his statements could be used in the [pending] case”). If the defendant decides not to offer an explanation, the court should respect his decision and not consider his silence in imposing sentence. For the above reasons, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence. We recede from prior case law to the extent that it is inconsistent with this opinion. Affirmed. DAMOORGIAN, C.J., WARNER, STEVENSON, GROSS, MAY, CIKLIN, GERBER, LEVINE, CONNER, FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. 1 . See Yisrael v. State, 65 So.3d 1177, 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (<HOLDING>); Mirutil v. State, 30 So.3d 588, 590 (Fla. 3d

A: holding decision denying expert witness testimony during sentencing concerning impact of prison term on juvenile offender was not a denial of due process
B: holding that the trial courts apparent consideration of the defendants national origin during sentencing amounted to a due process violation and required resentencing by a different judge
C: holding that consideration of pending or dismissed charges during sentencing results in a denial of the defendants due process rights
D: holding that the sentencing judge could consider the defendants subsequent arrest even though the charges were dismissed during sentencing
C.