With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). The Kiedrowski decision acknowledged that a non-habitual felony offender sentence could be made to run consecutively to a habitual felony offender sentence for felony offenses arising out of the same criminal episode, but held that such sentences violate Hale where, when combined, their length exceeds the maximum the defendant could have received under the habitual offender statute. See Kiedrowski, 876 So.2d at 694 (“Davis is silent as to whether the combined sentence of imprisonment and probation exceeded the statutory maximum allowed under the habitual felony offender statute. In the instant case the combined sentences do exceed the statutory maximum. We find this to be a critical distinction.”). But see Fuller v. State, 867 So.2d 469, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>). Kiedrowski distinguished, and did not

A: holding that the whole point in hale is that once the habitual offender sentencing scheme is utilized to enhance a sentence beyond the statutory maximum on one or more counts arising from a single criminal episode consecutive sentencing may not be used to further lengthen the overall sentence and certifying conflict with davis
B: holding that any fact other than a prior conviction may not be used to enhance a defendants sentence beyond the statutory maximum unless it is submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt
C: holding statutory maximum for prior conviction is the potential maximum sentence defined by the applicable state criminal statute not the maximum sentence which could have been imposed against the particular defendant  according to the states sentencing guidelines
D: holding that the district court may enhance a sentence for the use of a deadly weapon or under the habitual criminal statute but not both
A.