With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". CURIAM. Appellant’s motions for post conviction relief were dismissed by the trial court for lack of proper oaths. Scott v. State, 464 So.2d 1171 (Fla.1985). The orders did not permit amendment, contrary to the procedures announced in Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007). However, we affirm the dismissal, which we will treat as a denial in these circumstances, because appellant did subsequently file motions with proper oaths, and more importantly, because his motions are without merit on their substance grounds. See Gusow v. State, 6 So.3d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); see also Major v. State, 814 So.2d 424 (Fla.2002) (<HOLDING>). GROSS, C.J., POLEN and TAYLOR, JJ.,

A: holding that neither the trial court nor defense counsel has any duty to advise a defendant entering a plea that the plea may have sentencing enhancing consequences on a sentence imposed for a crime committed in the future
B: holding that an attorney is required to advise a defendant of the direct consequences of a plea and will not be found ineffective for failing to advise of collateral consequences of the plea
C: holding that a defendant is not entitled to postconviction relief where he has been given affirmative misadvice regarding possible sentence enhancing consequences of the plea in the event that the defendant commits a new crime in the future that is so because the defendant is under a legal duty to refrain from committing further crimes
D: holding that a defendant must have knowledge of the likely consequences of entering the guilty plea in order for a plea to be voluntary and knowing
A.