With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". cannot be avoided by the filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Finley v. State, 394 So.2d 215, 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (<HOLDING>). Appellant is warned that this is his fourth

A: holding that a petition for review is an adequate substitute for habeas corpus
B: holding that postconviction court could not deny a refilled rule 3850 motion as untimely when postconviction court did not set a filing deadline in dismissing defendants first rule 3850 motion without prejudice to refiling
C: holding that defendants 3850 motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred as successive where the defendants current rule 3850 motion is one that could have or should have been raised in his first rule 3850 motion
D: holding that the remedy of habeas corpus is not available as a substitute for postconviction relief under rule 3850
D.