Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Robideau intended D.C. to find his mother’s dead body. II. Was there sufficient notice of this reason for departure? The prosecution is required to notify the defendant of its intent to seek an upward departure. Minn.Stat. § 244.10, subd. 4 (2010); Minn. R.Crim. P. 7.03. Because the construction of procedural rules is reviewed de novo, we review de novo whether the notice in this case fulfills that required in the rules. Rourke, 773 N.W.2d at 923. Robideau argues that this departure basis was not included in the original notice of intent to seek an aggravated sentence. As a result, Robideau argues that it is an impermissible basis for departure and that he did not waive his jury trial right on this issue. See Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) ; State v. Shattuck, 689 N.W.2d 785, 786
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that criminal defendants have a right to a jury trial as to the facts on which a court bases an upward departure
B. recognizing that a criminal defendants right to a fair trial is fundamental
C. holding jury trial waiver valid despite defendants argument that district court failed to clearly distinguish between jury trial bench trial and the use of stipulated facts
D. holding that defendants have a right to counsel in criminal proceedings
E. recognizing the right to waive a jury trial
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.