With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". this Court is required to directly review Clark’s sentence of death, though we believe that, if he is competent, he may knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his right to any further review of his case. {92} IT IS SO ORDERED. MINZNER, C.J., BACA, and MAES, JJ., concur. FRANCHINI, Justice (specially concurring). 1 . The State notes that Rosales, Scullion, and Redford did not deliberate Clark’s sentence: Rosales’ name was not reached during the selection process, Scullion was peremptorily stricken by Clark, and Redford was chosen as an alternate after Clark exhausted his peremptory challenges. However, the State also notes that this Court held that prejudice is presumed when a defendant uses a peremptory challenge to remove a juror who should have been excused for cause, and ) (<HOLDING>); Klokoc v. State, 589 So.2d 219, 221-22 (Fla.

A: holding that twentythree years served on death row is not cruel and unusual punishment
B: holding that the fact that defendant spent years on death row awaiting execution does not render the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment
C: holding that california has an important interest in accuracy and fairness in its criminal proceed ings that outweighs the defendants right to selfrepresentation where the defendant challenged the validity of californias statutory automatic appeal for death sentences by habeas petition contending that his incarceration on death row pending determination of the forced and unwanted appeal constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and violates his right to refuse counsel
D: holding that twentythree years on death row is not cruel and unusual punishment
C.