With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 456.072(l)(k) and 458.331(l)(g). Although the statutes Dr. Pendergraft is charged with violating may provide penal sanctions, there is no explicit statutory requirement that a licensee be adjudicated guilty of the acts specified in the penal statutes before disciplinary action may be instituted. In fact, both sections 456.072(l)(c) and 458.331(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2005), allow disciplinary action, regardless of adjudication, for crimes the licensee may have committed in any jurisdiction relating to the practice of, or the ability to practice, medicine. Further, even an acquittal in a criminal prosecution will not bar a license revocation proceeding based upon the same offense as the criminal prosecution. State ex rel. De Gaetani v. Driskell, 139 Fla. 49, 190 So. 461, 463 (1939) (<HOLDING>); see State ex rel. Sbordy v. Rowlett, 138 Fla.

A: holding revocation of appellants medical license not barred by previous acquittal on charge of criminal abortion even though criminal charge was basis of license revocation proceeding
B: holding probation revocation is not a stage of a criminal prosecution
C: holding that revocation of medical license does not violate the ex post facto clause
D: holding that collateral estoppel does not require a criminal court to accept as binding an administrative proceedings license revocation determination
A.