With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that, in light of this court’s recent decision in Kulling v. State, 827 So.2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), it had reconsidered its former evidentiary ruling. In doing so, it determined that Heuring was not controlling in this instance, because it “is applicable only to ‘cases involving sexual abuse by a person in familial authority.’ ” The trial court further concluded that, under Rutting, the characteristics of the acts described by the State’s collateral crime witnesses were not “so [similar or] unique as to constitute fingerprint evidence.” The trial court in fact found that the testimony of the State’s witnesses merely demonstrated “limited points of factual similarity.” The State now properly petitions this court for certiorari relief. See State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d 250 (Fla.1988) (<HOLDING>). The State is entitled to such relief if the

A: holding in a similar case that certiorari was the proper vehicle for review
B: holding that certiorari petition is appropriate to review nonfinal pretrial evidentiary order in criminal case
C: holding that an appellate court may not exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction to review a nonfinal district court order where the merits of the nonfinal order are not inextricably intertwined with the properly appealed collateral order or where review of the former is not necessary to ensure meaningful review of the latter
D: holding that this court will consider a petition for a writ of certiorari only after the court of appeals has overruled the application for rehearing on the point challenged in the petition implying that the decision by the court of criminal appeals must be final before certiorari review would be available
B.