With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". We agree. Subject to certain exceptions not applicable here, Rule 3.850(b) provides a two-year period for the filing of a motion for postconviction relief “after the judgment and sentence become final in a non-capital case.” A judgment and sentence become final for purposes of the rule “when any such direct review proceedings have concluded and jurisdiction to entertain a motion for post-conviction relief returns to the sentencing court.” Ward v. Dugger, 508 So.2d 778, 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); see also Cardali v. State, opinion in Mullins’ direct appeal was accompanied by citations to authority, one of which was pending review in the Florida Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Florida Supreme Court retained jurisdiction. See Persaud v. State, 838 So.2d 529, 531-32 (Fla.2003) (<HOLDING>). The Florida Supreme Court ultimately decided

A: holding that this court does not have jurisdiction over plain tiffs claims because the court may review neither criminal matters nor the decisions of district courts
B: holding that this court does not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims because the court may review neither criminal matters nor the decisions of district courts
C: holding that this court does not review decisions of a district court not to depart downward unless the record reflects that the district court was not aware of or did not understand its discretion to make such a departure
D: holding that the court does not have jurisdiction to review per curiam decisions of the district courts of appeal that merely affirm with citations to cases not pending review in this court
D.