With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". undisputed facts de novo. See Binns v. State, 979 So.2d 439, 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). There is no statement of intent to authorize multiple punishments for the same crime in sections 847.0135(2), (4), Florida Statutes (2011), or section 934.215, Florida Statutes (2011). See Shelley v. State, 134 So.3d 1138, 1140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). In Shel ley, this court considered the text of section 847.0135(3) and held that although “there is an explicit statement of the legislature’s intent to authorize multiple- pun ishments for each violation of section 847.0135(3)(b) ... there is no explicit statement of intent to authorize multiple punishments for conduct that violates both section 847.0135(3)(b) and section 847.0135(4)(b).” Id. But see Griffis v. State, 133 So.3d 653, 654 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (<HOLDING>); State v. Murphy, 124 So.3d 323, 330 (Fla. 1st

A: holding that defendants affirmative acts of driving minor to robbery helping minor enter the building and serving as a lookout for the minor warranted sentencing enhancement
B: holding that double jeopardy does not prohibit dual convictions for possession and sale of the same quantum cocaine
C: holding that dual convictions for solicitation of a minor and traveling to meet the minor do not violate double jeopardy because sections 84701353 and 4 reflect a clear legislative intent to punish the offenses separately
D: holding that convictions for the crimes of conspiracy and continuing criminal enterprise violate double jeopardy
C.