With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". . In addition, we note that, given Parker's argument that the substantive instruction error was fundamental error under Florida law, it may have been difficult for the Florida Supreme Court to bar Parker’s claim because of the absence of a contemporaneous objection. A failure to object at trial is forgiven when the error is fundamental under Florida law. As Parker’s able counsel suggested at oral argument, if this isolated statement in the Florida Supreme Court's opinion had been the basis for imposing a procedural bar, Parker would have a colorable argument that the state court was applying inconsistent procedural rules which were therefore inadequate grounds to prevent our federal habeas review. See James v. Kentucky, 466 U.S. 341, 348-49, 104 S.Ct. 1830, 1835, 80 L.Ed.2d 346 (1984) (<HOLDING>); Ford v. Georgia, 498 U.S. 411, 111 S.Ct. 850,

A: holding that a state procedural default will not bar consideration of a federal claim on habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment clearly and expressly stated that its judgment rested on a state procedural bar
B: holding that rule 322a is an adequate and independent procedural bar
C: holding that procedural bar rule does not apply to ineffectiveness claims
D: holding that a procedural rule that is not firmly established and regularly followed cannot bar federal court review
D.