With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the conviction of the last prior felony .... ” § 775.084(l)(a)2, Fla. Stat. (1977). Significantly, the statute did not require that a defendant be convicted of the qualifying predicate offense prior to committing the second offense. Rather, the statute only required the trial court to find that the defendant committed the offense that he is being sentenced as habitual offender within five years of the predicate offense. See § 775.084(2), Fla. Stat. (1977); Smith v. State, 461 So.2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Courts do not have authority to change the plain meaning of a statute where the Legislature has unambiguously expressed its intent. State v. Barnes, 595 So.2d 22, 24 (Fla.1992). The 1977 version of the statute did not require sequential convictions. See, e.g., Barnes, 595 So.2d at 24 (<HOLDING>). Following Barnes, subsection (5) was added to

A: holding that the 1999 version of the sorp like the 1997 version is nonpunitive in both intent and effect
B: recognizing that the appellant improperly premised his arguments on his evidence and his version of the disputed facts despite his purporting to accept the plaintiffappellees version and proceeding with our appellate review by accepting the plaintiffappellees version of the disputed facts and evidence
C: holding that sequential convictions were not required by the 1988 version of the habitual offender statute
D: holding that when a video recording of an alleged excessive force incident contradicts the nonmoving partys version of the incident to the extent that no reasonable jury could believe it a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment
C.