With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. State, 166 So.3d 147, 149 (Ala.Crim.App.2014). The record indicates that the circuit court considered the presumptive sentencing standards before it entered a sentence departing from those standards. The record further indicates that Snow did not object to the circuit court’s departure from the presumptive standards on the basis that the State provided no proof of any aggravating factor or on the basis that the circuit court failed to state any reasons for its departure from the recommended sentence under the presumptive standards. The rules of preservation are well settled. “‘Review on appeal is restricted to questions and issues properly and timely raised at trial.’ ” Ex parte Coulliette, 857 So.2d 793, 794 (Ala.2003)(citing Newsome v. State, 570 So.2d 703, 717 (Ala.Crim.App. )(<HOLDING>). Because Snow did not raise the challenges to

A: holding circuit courts decision to depart from the presumptive sentencing recommendation and impose a prison sentence was reversible error where defendant objected on the basis that the state failed to give notice of aggravating factors that would justify a dispositional departure from the presumptive sentencing recommendation and the trial court failed to state on the record a reason for its departure
B: holding that notice must state the specific grounds for the departure
C: holding presumptive sentencing standards applied retroactively where defendant objected at sentencing hearing on the basis that the presumptive sentencing standards applied to his case
D: holding it was unfair for the trial court to rely upon factors already considered in the presumptive sentence as a basis for a durational departure
A.