With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". three years, he maintains that the evidence was insufficient to support his habitual offender conviction. The defendant’s interpretation, while intriguing as a matter of statutory construction, has already been rejected by the SJC and the MAC: The defendant argues that the statute requires that one actually serve at least three years in prison on each prior felony conviction before one can be sentenced under the habitual offender statute. We disagree. A defendant must have been sentenced to at least three years on each prior felony, but release on parole before three years have been served will not defeat application of the statute. See Commonwealth v. Tuitt, 393 Mass. 801, 473 N.E.2d 1103, 1111 n. 11 (1985); see also Commonwealth v. Allen, 22 Mass.App.Ct. 413, 494 N.E.2d 55, 62 (1986) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Hill, 20 Mass.App.Ct. 130,

A: holding that defendants adjudication as a habitual offender was not dependent upon his having served at least three years on each prior felony conviction per the tuitt decision
B: holding that defendants habitual traffic violator conviction could also serve as a predicate felony conviction under the general habitual offender statute
C: holding that under the 1991 version of the habitual offender statute defendant could not receive habitual offender sentence for life felony
D: holding that to constitute a prior conviction for purposes of the habitual felony offender act the defendant must have been adjudicated guilty before the present crime was committed
A.