With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Count II. In accordance with Clarke, since these convictions resulted from one prosecution, there is nothing to prevent the State from charging and convicting the defendant for both attempting to murder and at the same time willfully injuring a victim. As we held in Adcock, since willful injury is not a lesser-ineluded offense of attempted murder, had the defendant been found guilty of willful injury as a lesser-ineluded offense of attempted murder, he would have been found guilty of a crime for which he was not charged. Thus, as a lesser-ineluded offense, the charge would have been nullified. 2 . The facts of this case dp not rise beyond the level of facts in other cases in which no abuse of discretion was found. See McKinley v. Iowa Dist. Court, 542 N.W.2d 822, 826-27 (Iowa 1996) (<HOLDING>); State v. Bear, 452 N.W.2d 430, 434-35 (Iowa

A: holding that when the district court dismissed rather than transferred a case not within its jurisdiction and a party appealed that dismissal the circuit court could consider only the propriety of the dismissal on appeal and determining that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction on appeal to consider the merits of the action
B: holding because an award of attorney fees is discretionary court may consider attorney fees in relation to the underlying equities in the case
C: holding that the district court is not free to consider the potential for issue reduction when determining whether a putative intervener has a protectable interest in the merits of the action
D: holding courts apparent anger at counsels insistence on strict proof of an issue and statement the court would consider resulting adjournment when determining attorney fees revealed no prejudice on the merits of the action
D.