With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 877, 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (same). Both the Fifth and First Districts have similarly held that a defendant’s youthful offender status must be continued on re-sentencing after a violation of probation. See Christian v. State, 84 So.3d 437, 441-42 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (explaining that, though a youthful offender may receive the maximum sentence that could have originally been imposed had he not been sentenced under the youthful offender act pursuant to section 958.14, he still maintains his “youthful offender status”); Hudson v. State, 989 So.2d 725, 726 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“When a defendant has been designated a youthful offender, the court may not change that status by way of revocation of probation or community control.”); Gardner v. State, 656 So.2d 933, 937 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (<HOLDING>). Importantly, this is not a mere paper

A: holding that there is simply no booker error where a defendant was sentenced to the statutory minimum sentence
B: holding that once a defendant is sentenced under the provisions of section 95804 a court may not reclassify the defendant and sentence him or her in a manner inconsistent with section 95804
C: holding that the trial court may not retain jurisdiction over a sentence when the defendant is sentenced under the guidelines
D: holding that a defendant must have notice that the trial court might sentence him to death
B.