With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of review to issues involving the interpretation of NMSA 1978, § 31-20-12 (1977), the statute requiring presentenee credit. The State argues that we should review only for an abuse of discretion due to “the traditional discretion exercised by trial courts in sentencing.” See State v. Irvin, 114 N.M. 597, 600, 844 P.2d 847, 850 (Ct.App.1992) (stating that it was within the trial court’s discretion to treat defendant’s period of incarceration as a period of presentence confinement). The sentencing issue in this case, however, is not merely an issue of discretion. We are required to construe Section 31-20-12 in order to determine whether Defendant had a right to presentence credit. Thus, we review the case de novo. See State v. Rowell, 121 N.M. 111, 114, 908 P.2d 1379, 1382 (1995) (<HOLDING>); Irvin, 114 N.M. at 599, 844 P.2d at 849

A: holding that we review a district courts interpretation of a statute de novo
B: holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review
C: holding that review of the construction of a sentencing statute is de novo
D: recognizing that the standard of review for issues of statutory interpretation and construction is de novo
D.