With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". three of the claims without comment, but we reverse the first claim. Although the claim is inartfully drafted, Ghent -appears to allege that his sentences on two counts of attempted first-degree murder and one count of armed robbery are illegal because the convictions were improperly enhanced from first-degree felonies to life felonies for use of a firearm or weapon under section 775.087(1), Florida Statutes (1983). In Traylor v. State, 785 So.2d 1179, 1181 (Fla.2000), reh’g denied, 785 So.2d 1179 (Fla. May 17, 2001), the supreme court held that enhancement for use of a firearm is improper on a conviction for attempted first-degree felony murder where an essential element of the underlying felony is the use of a firearm. See also Brown v. State, 458 So.2d 313, 314 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (<HOLDING>). The trial court did not address this claim,

A: holding that armed robbery suspect was entitled to bail hearing even though armed robbery was considered capital offense under mississippi law because maximum sentence was life imprisonment
B: holding that exception did not apply to uncharged federal offense of unlawful possession of unregistered firearm even though defendant already had pending state charge of armed robbery involving the same weapon
C: holding that armed robbery cannot be enhanced under section 7750871 florida statutes 1981 because under the robbery statute it is already an enhanced charge due to the use or display of a weapon
D: holding that the defendants sentence for armed burglary in violation of section 810022b was improperly enhanced pursuant to section 775087 because the use of a weapon or a firearm is an essential element of armed burglary
C.