With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". entitles a defendant to a life sentence. Crawford, Cheney, and Perry are examples of cases in which this Court found the state did not prove its case for the death penalty, a finding that constitutes an acquittal of murder plus aggravating circumstances and legally entitled those defendants to life sentences. Contrary to the dissent’s claim, these cases do not stand for the proposition that this Court rejected Poland in any manner for almost ten years or found that the jury’s failure to find a particular aggravator constitutes an acquittal. This point is further supported by the fact that this Court cited Poland approvingly in Romano v. State, 1995 OK CR 74, ¶ 66-68, 909 P.2d 92, 117-18, a case decided eleven days after Cheney. 22 . 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) (<HOLDING>). 23 . 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153

A: holding that any fact other than that of a prior conviction that increases criminal penalties above the statutory maximum must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and found by a jury
B: holding that any fact other than fact of prior convictions which increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt
C: holding that if the existence of any fact increases the maximum punishment that may be imposed on a defendant that fact constitutes an element that must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt
D: holding that any fact that increases mandatory minimum is element that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
C.