With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 710 So.2d 527 (Ala.Crim.App.1997); Berry v. State, 698 So.2d 225 (Ala.Crim.App.1996); and Wood v. State, 602 So.2d 1195 (Ala.Crim.App.1992)(all recognizing that although a sentence may be valid, i.e., within the statutory sentencing range, the manner in which the sentence is ordered to be executed under § 15-18-8, Ala.Code 1975, may be invalid). Therefore, we must remand this case for the circuit court to conduct another sentencing hearing and to reconsider the execution of Austin’s 20-year sentence. Because the 20-year sentence was valid, the circuit court may not change it. See Wood, supra. However, the court may either split the sentence in compliance with § 15-18-8, i.e., with no more than 5 years in confinement, see, e.g., Soles v. State, 820 So.2d 163, 165 (Ala.Crim.App.2001)(<HOLDING>), or, if it determines that splitting the

A: holding that judge found sentence enhancements mandatorily imposed under the guidelines that result in a sentence greater than that authorized by the jury verdict or facts admitted by the defendant violate the sixth amendments guarantee of the right to trial by jury
B: holding that where original sentencing judge imposed a guidelines sentence defendant could not be sentenced as a habitual offender upon violation of probation
C: holding that the newly amended  15188 allows a trial judge to suspend a sentence imposed upon application of the schoolhousing enhancements despite the prohibition against probation in  13a12250 and 13a12270
D: holding that probation is not a sentence
C.