With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Id. at 314-15, 660 P.2d at 41 (emphasis added). The Robins holding makes sense in burglary cases because a burglary is complete at the moment an actor “enters or remains unlawfully” in a building with the requisite state of mind, and the State is not required to prove any other conduct, attendant circumstances, or results of conduct. When an offense requires the actual commission of an underlying crime, however, the State is required to prove all of the conduct, attendant circumstances, and results of conduct that comprise the underlying crime. Thus, as the emphasized language above indicates, the Robins holding is limited to cases involving offenses, such as burglary, that require only an intent to commit, L.Ed.2d 996 (1981); see also State v. Lindsey, 446 So.2d 1074, 1076 (Fla.1984) (<HOLDING>). We believe that where one offense requires

A: holding that an information charging defendant with offense of burglary that alleged that the defendant had committed an assault was not defective for failing to further allege specific facts that constituted assault
B: holding that merger did not apply because sexual assault was not a lesser included offense of seconddegree kidnapping involving sexual assault
C: holding that resisting arrest is lesser offense of assault on an officer
D: holding that information charging burglary did not satisfy taylor because of failure to allege unlawful or unprivileged entry
A.