With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the enactment of the subject statute does not change the analysis of when the right to counsel under Miranda is applicable. The fact that a second or subsequent refusal can now be a first- degree misdemeanor under certain circumstances, as opposed to merely subjecting the defendant to license suspension, is not the relevant inquiry. Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether there is a right to counsel at all prior to deciding to refuse to take the test. Initially, we note that Busciglio admirably bases his right-to-counsel argument as arising only from article I, section 9, of the Florida Constitution. He contends the Florida Constitution creates a greater right to counsel than that provided by the United States Constitution. See State v. Hoch, 500 So.2d 597, 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (<HOLDING>). Article I, section 9, provides that “[n]o

A: holding that a criminal defendant has a sixth amendment right to counsel at trial
B: holding that the sixth amendment right to counsel embodies the right to effective assistance of counsel
C: holding 1 that administering a breath test is not a critical stage of the proceedings to which a sixth amendment right to counsel attaches and 2 that the results of a breath test are physical evidence  not testimonial  and thus no fifth amendment right to counsel attaches
D: holding that the fourteenth amendment incorporated the sixth amendment right to counsel
C.