Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
CURIAM. Verdell Harvey challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Harvey’s motion contained five claims. We affirm the trial court’s rulings without discussion on four of the claims, but we reverse and remand with directions to the trial court on the fifth claim. Harvey was convicted of second-degree murder. In his motion, Harvey alleges that the trial court erred by not reclassifying this conviction from a first-degree felony to a life felony. In other words, Harvey alleges that the trial court erred by imposing a habitual offender sentence because the conviction was a life felony based on the use of a weapon. See, e.g., Nathan v. State, 689 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) . In order to enhance a conviction based on the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that under the 1991 version of the habitual offender statute defendant could not receive habitual offender sentence for life felony
B. holding that a defendant sentenced as an habitual offender who later successfully challenges one of his predicate offenses may have his habitual offender status and sentencing enhancement vacated through postconviction relief or a motion to correct erroneous sentence
C. holding that under habitual felony offender statute a sentence includes the sanction of probation
D. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in not allowing defendant to present evidence of his subjective belief regarding his status as habitual offender because his belief was irrelevant to offense of driving as habitual offender
E. holding that defendants habitual traffic violator conviction could also serve as a predicate felony conviction under the general habitual offender statute
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.