With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". given immunity for his involvement in this crime and others in exchange for his testimony. The trial court in this case did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Mills’ claim of newly discovered evidence would not produce an acquittal or life sentence on retrial. Claim, II Since his direct appeal, Mills has repeatedly argued that a person found guilty of felony murder is more likely to receive a death sentence than a person found guilty of premeditated murder because once he has been found guilty of felony murder (in this case, murder committed during the course of a burglary), the aggravating factor that the murder was committed in the course of another dangerous felony becomes automatic. We have repeatedly denied this claim. Mills v. Singletary, 606 So.2d 622 (Fla.1992) (<HOLDING>); Mills v. Dugger, 559 So.2d 578 (Fla.1990);

A: holding that reversal of conviction for felony murder was required where jury failed to find the defendant guilty of the underlying felony as essential element of the felony murder offense
B: holding that it is unconstitutional to base aggravating circumstance in capital prosecution on felony that was used to obtain firstdegree murder conviction
C: holding stringer v black 503 us 222 112 sct 1130 117 led2d 367 1992 was not a change in the law that warranted retroactive application and thus mills claim that the felony murder aggravator was an unconstitutional automatic aggravating circumstance in felony murder cases was procedurally barred
D: holding that first and seconddegree intentional murder verdicts are consistent with a felony murder verdict because lack of intent is not an element of seconddegree felony murder
C.