With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s sixth claim, concerning his sentence in L.T. case number 97-5004. In the sixth ground for his motion, appellant argued that his sentences in case numbers 97-12527 and 97-5004 exceeded the limits provided by law, because they were based on the 1995 sentencing guidelines, which were declared unconstitutional in Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000) (sustaining a constitutional challenge to the 1995 sentencing guidelines, enacted by chapter 95-184, in violation of the single subject rule). We agree with the State that appellant lacked standing to raise a Heggs claim with respect to L.T. case number 97-12527, because those offenses were alleged to have been committed on November 18 and 19, 1997. See Trapp v. State, 760 So.2d 924 (Fla.2000) (<HOLDING>). The State concedes that appellant had

A: holding that only those persons whose offenses were committed on or after october 1 1995 and before may 24 1997 have standing to challenge their sentences under heggs
B: holding that the window period for standing to challenge chapter 95184 on single subject rule grounds in most cases opened on october 1 1995 and closed on may 24 1997
C: holding that persons challenging a sentence imposed under the 1995 sentencing guidelines have standing to do so if the relevant criminal offense occurred on or after october 1 1995 and before may 25 1997
D: holding that prisoners whose convictions became final on or before april 24 1996 must file their  2255 motions before april 24 1997
A.