With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". [] on that basis.” (Respondents’ Exh. L at 7) Because Petitioner had not raised the specific claims he asserted on appeal to the trial court, the Arizona Court of Appeals reviewed those new claims for fundamental error, and concluded they were “not supported [] with citations to any evidence in the record,” and were “clearly unreasonable.” (Id. at ¶ 15) The appellate court found “no merit” to Petitioner’s contention that Judge Conn should have recused himself. (Id.) The Court of Appeals’ fundamental error review is sufficient to exhaust Petitioner’s challenge to Judge Conn’s failure to recuse himself because the court specifically identified which claims it was reviewing. Poland v. Stewart, 117 F.3d 1094, 1105-06 (9th Cir.1997); Moormann v. Schriro, 426 F.3d 1044, 1057 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>) Regardless, Petitioner’s recusal claim fails

A: holding that the failure to charge an essential element of a crime in the indictment is an error which should be noted by an appellate court sua sponte as plain error
B: holding that when neither the petitioners state court briefs nor the state courts decision made any reference to any federal constitutional claim or cited any federal constitutional cases the lack of fundamental error found by the state court was a lack of fundamental error under arizonas state constitution
C: holding that appellate court may only review issues actually presented to and considered by the trial court
D: holding that a claim is considered exhausted by arizonas fundamental error review if it was explicitly noted in the briefs presented to the state appellate court or the state court mentions it is considering the claim sua sponte
D.