With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". affirm without comment the court’s denial of Rubio’s motions to dismiss. We remand, however, for vacatur of the conviction and sentence on Count 3 on double jeopardy grounds. Although Ru-bio did not'argue in the trial court that the charge of unlawfully using a two-way communications device should have been subsumed within the charge of traveling to meet a- minor, a double jeopardy violation constitutes a fundamental error that we may address for the first time on appeal. See Mizner v. State, 154 So.3d 391, 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). And, because the amended information charged Rubio with committing both of those offenses within the same time period, i.e., “on or between June 9, 2013[,] and June 11, 2013,” our precedent dictates that we find such a violation in this case. See id. at 400 (<HOLDING>). But see Lee v. State, 223 So.3d 342, 353

A: holding that when state charges defendant with both unlawfully using twoway communications device and traveling during same time period state charges single criminal episode regardless of whether evidence could support finding of separate criminal episodes and double jeopardy considerations require that  communications charge be subsumed within traveling charge
B: holding that the offense of unlawful use of a twoway communications device does not contain any elements that are distinct from the offense of traveling to meet a minor
C: holding that for conduct arising out of the same criminal episode the elements for the offense of unlawful use of a twoway communications device  are subsumed within the soliciting and traveling offenses
D: recognizing the specific need for an appropriate double jeopardy review when an appeal is taken by the state from a lower courts dismissal of the criminal charges
A.