In State v. McMahon, 257 Conn. 544, 778 A.2d 847 (2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 1069, 151 L. Ed. 2d 972 (2002) the Court addressed the identical issue now raised by the defendant. Id. at 557-58. In rejecting the double jeopardy challenge in McMahon, the court, after reviewing the express language of 53-202k and the legislative history surrounding its enactment, held that "on the basis of the plain language of 53-202k, its legislative history, and prior court decisions interpreting the statute, we conclude that the application of 53-202k's sentence enhancement to manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm, a class B felony, does not violate double jeopardy." Id. at 562. In McMahon, after a detailed analysis, our Supreme Court stated: "On the basis of the plain language of 53-202k, its legislative history, and prior court decisions interpreting the statute, we conclude that the application of 53-202k's sentence enhancement to manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm, a class B felony, does not violate double jeopardy." Id., at 562.