With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v Bewersdorf, 181 Mich App 430, 433; 450 NW2d 271 (1989), aff'd in part and rev’d in part 438 Mich 55 (1991). 48 Bewersdorf, 438 Mich at 68. 49 Id. at 69-70 (quotation marks and citation omitted). 50 Id. at 68. The OUIL provisions at issue in Bewersdorf differ from the SORA. provisions in that the underlying offenses in Bewersdorf were misdemeanors and SORA-1, SORA-2, and SORA-3 are all felonies. Defendant complains that his sentence is inappropriate because his SORA-1 conviction was used to support his SORA-2 conviction and as th 491 (1990) (reaffirming Eilola and extending it by holding that the sentence could be enhanced using the same conviction used to elevate the offense (answering a question left open in Eilola)); People v James, 191 Mich App 480, 481-482; 479 NW2d 16 (1991) (<HOLDING>); People v Lynch, 199 Mich App 422, 423-424;

A: holding the mandatory minimum sentence to be constitutionally applicable to respondent
B: holding that the habitualoffender statutes and the statute imposing a mandatory minimum 5year sentence for a second offense of criminal sexual conduct may be concur rently applied
C: holding that the statute is mandatory
D: holding that even if the minimum mandatory exceeds the statutory maximum the court must impose the minimum mandatory
B.