Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Judge. Kiefer Filppula entered a plea of nolo contendere to the following crimes: (1) possession of a prescription drug without a prescription in violation of section 499.03, Florida Statutes (2009); (2) possession of cannabis with intent to sell in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2009); (3) possession of alprazolam in violation of section 893.13; and (4) possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of section 893.147. On appeal, Filppula argues that the court imposed illegal sentences on counts two and three. We agree and reverse. For count three, the possession of alprazolam, the court orally sentenced Filppula to five years’ probation with two 1991) . Finally, the order of probation states that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the law is clear that when a defen dant is sentenced to a split sentence consisting of incarceration and probation  the combined sanction cannot exceed the maximum period of incarceration provided by law
B. holding a sentence is not limited to period of incarceration
C. holding that probation is not a sentence
D. holding that work release qualified as incarceration
E. holding that a sentence structured with three years incarceration suspended and eight years of sex offender probation was a true split sentence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.