With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". public defender was appointed to represent her. Carver raises this issue pursuant to RCr 10.26, which permits this Court to review a matter which was not raised before the trial court: A palpable error which affects the substantial rights of a party may be considered by the court on motion for a new trial or by an appellate court on appeal, even though insufficiently raised or preserved for review, and appropriate relief may be granted upon a determination that manifest injustice has resulted from the error. RCr 10.26. Because Carver did not object to the imposition of a fine before the circuit court, our review can only be for palpable error. Ordinarily, we would prohibit imposition of fines when the issue was properly preserved. Simpson v. Commonwealth, 889 S.W.2d 781, 784 (Ky.1994) (<HOLDING>). Even upon review for palpable error, we would

A: holding that where the language of the statute required the imposition of both confinement of which a portion could not be suspended and a fine the court had the ability to impose a fine and then suspend it
B: holding that because the defendant was represented by a public defender at sentencing the circuit court must have found him indigent accordingly imposition of any fine was inappropriately
C: holding that the failure to impose a mandatory fine requires that the matter be remanded for imposition of that fine
D: holding in a case where the maximum time of imprisonment was extended because an indigent defendant was unable to pay a fine and court costs that a state may not constitutionally imprison beyond the maximum duration fixed by statute a defendant who is financially unable to pay a fine
B.