the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s sixth claim, concerning his sentence in L.T. case number 97-5004. In the sixth ground for his motion, appellant argued that his sentences in case numbers 97-12527 and 97-5004 exceeded the limits provided by law, because they were based on the 1995 sentencing guidelines, which were declared unconstitutional in Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000) (sustaining a constitutional challenge to the 1995 sentencing guidelines, enacted by chapter 95-184, in violation of the single subject rule). We agree with the State that appellant lacked standing to raise a Heggs claim with respect to L.T. case number 97-12527, because those offenses were alleged to have been committed on November 18 and 19, 1997. See Trapp v. State, 760 So.2d 924 (Fla.2000) (<HOLDING>). The State concedes that appellant had
holding that persons challenging a sentence imposed under the 1995 sentencing guidelines have standing to do so if the relevant criminal offense occurred on or after october 1 1995 and before may 25 1997 holding that prisoners whose convictions became final on or before april 24 1996 must file their  2255 motions before april 24 1997 holding that the window period for standing to challenge chapter 95184 on single subject rule grounds in most cases opened on october 1 1995 and closed on may 24 1997 holding that only those persons whose offenses were committed on or after october 1 1995 and before may 24 1997 have standing to challenge their sentences under heggs holding that only those defendants whose offenses occurred between october 1 1995 and may 27 1997 have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the sentencing guidelines addressed by heggs