With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". judicial responsibility.” Sentencing discretion — the choice of a penalty within the range fixed by legislation — is part of the judiciary's responsibility. Id. at 583-84, 789 P.2d at 1084-85 (citations omitted). When disputes have arisen regarding the division of authority among the three branches of government in the development and administration of the criminal laws, we have acted to prevent one branch from intruding upon the domain of another branch. See, e.g., State v. Larson, 159 Ariz. 14, 17, 764 P.2d 749, 752 (App.1988) (trial court cannot intrude upon the prosecutor’s charging function by dismissing charges pursuant to misdemeanor compromise statute without the prosecutor’s statutorily-required recommendation); State v. Jones, 142 Ariz. 302, 305, 689 P.2d 561, 564 (App.1984) (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Prentiss, 163 Ariz. 81, 85,

A: holding that dui sentencing statute that permitted the trial court to impose an alternative sentence based upon the prosecutors recommendation was unconstitutional in violation of article 3 because the decision to mitigate a sentence properly belongs to the judge and not the prosecutor
B: holding that the sentence entered by the circuit court was illegal because the court had no authority to impose a sentence that exceeded the punishment fixed by the jury
C: holding unconstitutional defendants sentence of death based upon the holding in roper supra and remanding for the montgomery circuit court to set aside the defendants death sentence and to sentence him to the only other sentence available  life in the penitentiary without the possibility of parole
D: holding that under the alabama death penalty statute because the judge did not consider the jurys recommendation the statute which forced the jury to sentence the defendant to death whenever aggravating circumstances existed was not unconstitutional
A.