With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in E.A.R. and (2) whether the court’s departure reasons are supported by the evidence.” Id. (citing E.A.R., 4 So.3d at 638-39). Whether the trial court employed the proper legal standard is reviewed de novo. Id. Section 985.433, Florida Statutes (2016), governs the disposition hearing in delinquency proceedings. Under subsection (6), the first determination to be made is “the suitability or nonsuitability for adjudication and commitment of the child to the [Department.” § 985.433(6), Fla. Stat. (2016). This Court has recognized that subsection (6) gives wide discretion to the trial court in determining whether to commit a child to the Department and that the rigorous analysis in E.A.R. does not apply to this initial determination. J.B.S. v. State, 90 So.3d 961, 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (<HOLDING>); B.K.A. v. State, 122 So.3d 928, 930 (Fla. 1st

A: holding jury is entitled to accept the states version of the facts and reject appellants version or reject any of the witnesses testimony
B: holding the ear analysis did not apply to the trial courts initial determination made under section 9854336 to reject the departments recommendation of probation in favor of commitment
C: holding that probation is not a sentence
D: holding that analysis under section 1301g is not the same as the analysis under section 1301f and that the existence of accident or mistake is irrelevant because appellants moved for relief only under section 1301f
B.