With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Mohler, 694 N.E.2d 1129 (Ind.1998), we conclude that the new rule of law announced in Bryant v. State, 660 N.E.2d 290 (Ind.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 293, 136 L.Ed.2d 213 (1996), is not retroactive under Daniels v. State, 561 N.E.2d 487 (Ind.1990), and so does not entitle Gary Elvers to post-conviction relief. On July 24, 1992, the Indiana Department of Revenue assessed Gary Elvers (“Elvers”) a Controlled Substance Excise Tax (“CSET”) for possessing marijuana. The State charged Elvers with possession of marijuana, a class A misdemeanor, and failure to pay the CSET on July 28, 1992. Elvers pled guilty to the charge of possession on May 24, 1993. On July 3, 1996, Elvers filed a petition for post-conviction relief based on this Court’s decision in Bryant, 660 N.E.2d 290 (<HOLDING>), which the post-conviction court denied.

A: holding that the jeopardy clause bars retrial when the prosecution failed to supply sufficient evidence to merit conviction
B: holding that if double jeopardy clause is not violated because legislature intended double punishment section 7019 is not applicable and merger is not required
C: holding that unlike under the federal constitution a civil forfeiture is punishment under the new mexico double jeopardy clause
D: holding that because cset is punishment the double jeopardy clause bars drug prosecution after cset has been assessed
D.