With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in applications for post-conviction relief. See Alexander, 14-0401, p. 2, 152 So.3d at 137-38 (quoting State v. Cotton, 09-2397, p. 2 (La.10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030, 1030 (per curiam)) (punctuation omitted). See also State v. Daniels, 00—3369, p. 1 (La.11/2/01), 800 So.2d 770, 771 (per curiam); Cotton, 09-2397, p. 1, 45 So.3d at 1030 (An “habitual offender adjudication does not pronounce a separate conviction or institute a separate criminal- proceeding, but instead only addresses itself to the sentencing powers of the trial judge after conviction ,.. ”) (punctuation omitted). Thus, Mr. Nicholas’s motion, construed as an application for post-conviction relief, fails to raise claims that we can consider. See, e.g., State v. Hebreard, 98-0385 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/25/98), 708 So.2d 1291 (<HOLDING>). Ill Because Mr.-Nicholas failed

A: holding that a habeas petitioner was not entitled to relief from a state courts determination that he had forfeited his right to counsel by physically assaulting his attorney and threatening to put a contract on his attorneys life
B: holding that when an attorney represents multiple clients and a dispute between the attorney and one client later occurs there is a waiver of the privilege but only by the client asserting the liability
C: holding that a defendants claim challenging his multiple offender adjudication by asserting that the district attorney provided insufficient evidence of his boykin waiver was not entitled to be heard on postconviction relief
D: holding that the multiple offender could not expunge all of his convictions by simply removing them from his record one at a time
C.