Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
So.2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Peters v. State, 658 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Provided the charging instrument which we do not have in our record properly charged the firearm or weapon, the judgment in this ease mistakenly concludes that this homicide is a first-degree felony punishable by life. Young’s conviction for second-degree murder with a firearm did not qualify for habitual offender treatment under the version of the statute applicable to him at that time. A habitual offender sentence is illegal for purposes of a motion to correct an illegal sentence if the terms or conditions of the punishment for a particular offense are impermissible as a matter of law. See Judge v. State, 596 So.2d 73, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); see also Nathan v. State, 689 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) . We direct the trial court to resentence Young
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding our habitual offender act does not limit enhancement to prior felony convictions within a certain time
B. holding that under habitual felony offender statute a sentence includes the sanction of probation
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 defendants habitual traffic violator conviction could also serve as a predicate felony conviction under the general habitual offender statute
E. holding that incorrect determination that life felony was a firstdegree felony punishable by life resulting in improper habitual offender sentence was subject to correction in a rule 3800 proceeding
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.