With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". him. Having thoroughly considered his arguments in support thereof, we decline that request and affirm the order denying his motion to suppress without further comment. Thompson presents an alternative issue: his convictions for both possession of cannabis in excess of twenty grams and possession of cannabis with intent to sell, which arise from possession of the same cannabis, violate the proscription against double jeopardy. We note, parenthetically, that because Thompson entered an open plea to the charges and there is nothing in the record indicating that Thompson otherwise knowingly waived any double jeopardy violation, he may properly challenge his convictions on double jeopardy grounds. See Melvin v. State, 645 So.2d 448 (Fla.1994); Novaton v. State, 684 So.2d 607 (Fla.1994) (<HOLDING>); Barfield v. State, 871 So.2d 929 (Fla. 5th

A: holding that convictions for the crimes of conspiracy and continuing criminal enterprise violate double jeopardy
B: holding that defendant did not have standing to raise facial challenge to validity of aggravated assault statutes for their risk of creating double jeopardy grounds because he himself was not charged in way that created double jeopardy
C: holding that a defendants acceptance of sentencing pursuant to a bargained for plea agreement waives any double jeopardy violations
D: holding that a bargainedfor plea waives the right to attack multiple convictions on double jeopardy grounds
D.