With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that violated double jeopardy. Following resentencing and a subsequent appeal, Clark has now filed a petition alleging that his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to argue in the direct appeal that fundamental error occurred when the jury was instructed regarding the forcible-felony-exception to a claim of self defense. See § 776.041(1), Fla. Stat. (1999) (prohibiting the use of force by one who is “attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony”). We deny the petition. The forcible-felony-exception instruction is given only where a defendant is charged with a separate, independent forcible felony, i.e., a forcible felony other than the one for which the defendant claims self defense. Giles v. State, 831 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (<HOLDING>); see In re Std. Jury Instr. in Crim. Cases,

A: recognizing district court does not err by giving instruction that tracks pattern instruction and correctly states the law
B: holding that insanity is a complete defense to the criminal charge
C: recognizing that giving this instruction where no independent forcible felony is alleged is misleading and circular and effectively negated the only defense to the charge
D: holding that the giving of a felony murder instruction is not a relevant mitigating circumstance when the defendant acted alone to kill the victim
C.