With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that his trial counsel was ineffective in not objecting to Respondent’s sentence on the basis of the State’s failure to provide Respondent with written notice of its intention to seek LWOP as required by § 17-25-45(H). The PCR court denied Respondent relief and offered two principal bases for its decision. First, the court found that both Respondent and his trial counsel were aware of the State’s intention to seek LWOP well in advance of Respondent’s trial. In light of this Court’s precedent providing that § 17-25-45(11) requires only actual notice, see State v. Washington, 338 S.C. 392, 526 S.E.2d 709 (2000), the PCR court concluded that the statute had not been violated. The court distinguished the court of appeals case State v. Johnson, 347 S.C. 67, 552 S.E.2d 339 (Ct.App.2001) (<HOLDING>), on the grounds that in the instant case, it

A: holding that the 30day notice of appeal requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional
B: holding that the use of the written form is mandatory and that failure to use the written form as mandated is reversible error
C: holding that the statute is mandatory
D: holding that  172545hs written notice requirement is mandatory
D.