Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Under § 15-18-8, Austin must serve a minimum of 3 years, but no more than 5 years, in confinement. The circuit court, therefore, did not have jurisdiction to order that Austin serve only 26 months in confinement. Accordingly, we must again remand this case for the circuit court to conduct another sentencing hearing and to again reconsider the execution of Austin’s 20-year sentence. As we stated in our original opinion: “Because the 20-year sentence was valid, the circuit court may not change it. See Wood[ v. State, 602 So.2d 1195 (Ala.Crim.App.1992)]. However, the court may either split the sentence in compliance with § 15-18-8, i.e., with no more than 5 years in confinement [and no less than 3 years in confinement], see, e.g., Soles v. State, 820 So.2d 163, 165 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), or, if it determines that splitting the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that judge found sentence enhancements mandatorily imposed under the guidelines that result in a sentence greater than that authorized by the jury verdict or facts admitted by the defendant violate the sixth amendments guarantee of the right to trial by jury
B. holding that the newly amended  15188 allows a trial judge to suspend a sentence imposed upon application of the schoolhousing enhancements despite the prohibition against probation in  13a12250 and 13a12270
C. holding that probation is not a sentence
D. holding that where original sentencing judge imposed a guidelines sentence defendant could not be sentenced as a habitual offender upon violation of probation
E. holding that upon revocation of probation a court must grant credit for time served on probation and community control towards any newly imposed term of imprisonment and probation so that the total period of control probation and imprisonment does not exceed the statutory maximum
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.