With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983), and Daniels v. State, 595 So.2d 952 (Fla.1992), stand only for the rule that the minimum mandatory portion of an enhanced habitual offender sentence may not be imposed consecutively to any other enhanced minimum mandatory sentence arising from the same criminal episode. To date, the legislature has not enacted legislation modifying the statute upon which the holding in those cases was based. Until it does so, we find that a trial court is without authority to- enhance sentences from multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode by both sentencing a defendant as a habitual offender and ordering that the sentences be served consecutively. Id. at 1385-1386 (italics in original, bold emphasis added); see also Pangburn v. State, 661 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1995) (<HOLDING>); Parks v. State, 701 So.2d 653, 654 (Fla. 4th

A: holding that even if the minimum mandatory exceeds the statutory maximum the court must impose the minimum mandatory
B: holding that the defendants sentence for robbery was not inappropriate
C: holding that sentence was erroneous but not void where sentence of life imprisonment without parole was imposed for first degree murder under unconstitutional penalty statute
D: holding hfo mandatory minimum sentence for robbery must run concurrently with sentences imposed for nonhfo first degree murder convictions
D.