With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". he had not alleged that the State could not have brought him to trial within the fifteen-day recapture window. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.191(p)(3) (providing the State a total of fifteen days after a notice of expiration is filed to bring a defendant to trial). The trial court agreed and cited Newkirk v. State, 947 So.2d 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), where this court rejected just such a claim under similar circumstances. This court explained as follows: “[Appellant’s] allegations with respect to failure to request a speedy trial discharge also do not show that the proceeding was rendered fundamentally unfair or that the state could not have brought him to trial within the time periods allowed by the speedy trial rule.” Id. at 549; see also Dexter v. State, 837 So.2d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>). Hammond, by contrast, relies on First

A: holding that the state courts determination that the petitioner could not show prejudice because he did not allege that the witness was available to testify was a reasonable application of federal law to the facts of the case
B: holding that in order to establish prejudice based on misadvice regarding sentence length defendant must allege generally that he would not have pleaded but for the bad advice
C: holding that where a defendant fails to challenge his plea in district court he must establish plain error
D: holding that a defendant fails to establish prejudice if he does not allege that the state could not have brought him to trial within the recapture window
D.