710 So.2d 527 (Ala.Crim.App.1997); Berry v. State, 698 So.2d 225 (Ala.Crim.App.1996); and Wood v. State, 602 So.2d 1195 (Ala.Crim.App.1992)(all recognizing that although a sentence may be valid, i.e., within the statutory sentencing range, the manner in which the sentence is ordered to be executed under § 15-18-8, Ala.Code 1975, may be invalid). Therefore, we must remand this case for the circuit court to conduct another sentencing hearing and to reconsider the execution of Austin’s 20-year sentence. Because the 20-year sentence was valid, the circuit court may not change it. See Wood, supra. However, the court may either split the sentence in compliance with § 15-18-8, i.e., with no more than 5 years in confinement, see, e.g., Soles v. State, 820 So.2d 163, 165 (Ala.Crim.App.2001)(<HOLDING>), or, if it determines that splitting the
holding that where original sentencing judge imposed a guidelines sentence defendant could not be sentenced as a habitual offender upon violation of probation 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 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 holding that probation is not a sentence 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