With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". execution.” Boyd, 717 So.2d at 524 (emphasis added). Therefore, even though the Affidavits of Violation of Probation were filed within the probationary period, the “probation revocation process” as defined in Boyd was not set in motion within that period, and the county court did not have jurisdiction over these revocation proceedings. See Francois v. State, 695 So.2d 695, 697 (Fla.1997) (“[W]hen a probationary period expires, the court is divested of jurisdiction over the probationer unless, prior to that time, the appropriate steps were taken to revoke or modify the probation.”). Furthermore, the mandate of Boyd and Francois cannot be avoided by construing the defendants’ violations of probation as “absconding” that would toll the probationary period. See Francois, 695 So.2d at 697 (<HOLDING>). Reversed and remanded for further consistent

A: holding that a notation in the probation officers file that watkins was delinquent was not sufficient to initiate revocation proceedings and to toll the running of watkins probationary period
B: holding that probation is not a sentence
C: holding that under the law of the district of columbia the filing of a complaint does not toll the statute of limitations on a counterclaim
D: holding that the failure to satisfactorily meet the conditions of probation is not the legal equivalent of absconding and does not toll the probationary period
D.