With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that Twogood could have attacked this condition of probation when he pursued his direct appeal of his conviction. The State contends that, because Twogood failed to raise this claim in his direct appeal, he is estopped from pursing this claim now. We need not resolve this issue because, as we have just explained, even if Twogood is entitled to litigate this claim, he is not entitled to relief.) Twogood's claim that Judge Olsen violated Alaska Criminal Rule 32 by failing to sentence him "without unreasonable delay" Under Alaska law, a person who has been convicted of a criminal offense has a right to be sentenced within a reasonable amount of time. See Alaska Criminal Rule 82(a) ("Sentence shall be imposed without unreasonable delay."); Gonzales v. State, 582 P.2d 680, 632 (Alaska 1978) (<HOLDING>). Twogood claims that Judge Olsen violated his

A: recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights
B: holding that the constitutional right to a speedy trial includes the right to a reasonably prompt sentencing
C: holding that a 19month delay between indictment and trial did not violate the constitutional right to a speedy trial
D: holding right to testify was federal constitutional right
B.