With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". CURIAM. The defendant appeals from a final judgment of conviction and sentence for robbery. The trial court properly admitted collateral crime evidence to show the defendant’s intent. See § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1999); see also, e.g., Robertson v. State, 780 So.2d 106, 110-112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>). We also reject the appellant’s claim that the

A: holding that evidence of five prior antitrust actions brought against the defendants was irrelevant on issue of defendants motive to conspire and noting that simply because the defendants were named in past antitrust cases involving similar allegations does not make it more probable that the defendants had a motive to carry out their conspiracy
B: holding extrinsic evidence of defendants motive to possess gun inadmissible where defendant did not contest the issue of motive
C: holding that williams rule evidence of a threat against a previous partner involving a gun had the purpose of assisting the jury to understand defendants conduct at the time of the shooting with regard to the defendants motive and intent and his claim of accident and was properly admitted
D: holding that the statement i have a gun is a threat of death
C.