With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". underlying claim to be without merit for multiple reasons and appellate counsel was not ineffective for the failure to present this claim. II. Ring and Apprendi Violations with Death Penalty Statute Overton contends that his sentences of death must be vacated because Florida’s capital sentencing scheme is a violation of both Ring and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). The claim is without merit. This Court addressed the contention that Florida’s capital sentencing scheme violates the United States Constitution under Apprendi and Ring in Bottoson v. Moore, 833 So.2d 693 (Fla.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1070, 123 S.Ct. 662, 154 L.Ed.2d 564 (2002), and King v. Moore, 831 So.2d 143 (Fla.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1067, 123 S.Ct. 657, 154 L.Ed.2d 556 (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we

A: holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively in florida postconviction proceedings to cases that were final on direct review at the time of the apprendi decision
B: holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively
C: holding that apprendi does not apply on collateral review
D: holding that ring does not apply retroactively in florida postconviction proceedings to cases that were final on direct review at the time of the ring decision
A.