With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on December 8, 1987. The proper pleading which Harris should have filed was a mo on under rule 3.850, Florida Rules of riminal procedure.” Id. at 329. Thus, though the Petitioner would have had itil May 27, • 2001, to file his petition ider Wood, his claims should be properly •ought under a Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850, and 3 two year time limit. Either under Tood or Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850, Petitioner’s aim is untimely. See also Major v. State, 10 So.2d 550, 551 (Fla. 3d DCA )01)(stating that the type of claim ad-mced by the defendant whose federal ¡ntence was enhanced based on a state inviction, i.e. the collateral consequences ’ the pleas, was not a claim cognizable in writ or error coram nobis). Assuming Petitioner’s Motion were )t untimely, 5 WL 350313, *2, — So.2d -, - (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)(<HOLDING>) Finally, even if this Court were not bound by

A: holding that defendants claim for ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest was not cognizable on direct appeal
B: holding that a defendant is not entitled to relief where he has been given affirmative misadvice regarding the possible sentenceenhancing consequences of a plea in the event that the defendant commits a new crime in the future
C: holding that res judicata does not bar a defendant from raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for the first time in a postcollateral proceeding if the defendant was represented by the same counsel at trial and on direct appeal or if an actual conflict of interest enjoined appellate counsel from raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal
D: holding in direct conflict with the second third and fifth districts that allegations of affirmative misadvice by trial counsel on the sentenceenhancing consequences of a defendants plea for future criminal behavior in an otherwise facially sufficient motion are cognizable as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim
D.