With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". an off-the-record discussion with the prosecutor and defense counsel, the trial court departed downward, explaining that a prison sentence seemed “unreasonable” given the nature of the crime. The trial judge also discussed the need for restitution, but never clearly identified this as a justification for the departure sentence. Although the State made it clear, for the record, that it would not offer a departure sentence as part of a negotiated plea, the State never objected to the court’s imposition of a departure sentence. Rather, the prosecutor told the judge that if she “would like to mitigate, that’s on you, that’s not from the State.” Accordingly, we find that the issue was not preserved for appellate review, and affirm. See State v. Colbert, 968 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. PALMER, LAWSON, and JACOBUS, JJ.,

A: holding that claim was preserved for subsequent appeal by objection at original sentencing hearing
B: holding that general objection did not preserve error on appeal
C: holding that to successfully challenge a departure sentence on appeal the state must properly preserve the issue by objection during the sentencing hearing
D: holding that defendant must object at trial to preserve as applied challenge for appeal
C.