With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". However, within this claim, Downs also argues counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not objecting to the various jury instructions. At the time of Downs’ resentencing, the trial court used the standard jury instructions, which had been approved by this Court. See Brown v. State, 565 So.2d 304, 309 (Fla.1990) (affirming instruction on cold, calculated and premeditated aggravating factor), abrogated by Jackson v. State, 648 So.2d 85 (Fla.1994); Lightbourne v. State, 438 So.2d 380, 385 (Fla.1983) (upholding validity of aggravating and mitigating statute challenged on vagueness grounds). Thus, trial counsel cannot be deemed ineffective under the standards set forth in Strickland for not objecting to the constitutional validity of these instructions. See Harvey, 656 So.2d at 1258 (<HOLDING>); Mendyk, 592 So.2d at 1080 (“When jury

A: holding that the prejudice prong of strickland was not met in a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the prosecutors misstatement of law where the trial court properly instructed the jury
B: holding that if jury instructions viewed as a whole fairly state the applicable law to the jury the failure to give particular instructions will not be error
C: holding that where jury has been properly instructed counsel is not ineffective for failing to object to an instruction
D: holding that counsel may not be deemed ineffective under strickland for failing to object to jury instructions where this court previously upheld validity of those instructions
D.