With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". against Faret-ta and remanded for further proceedings. The rationale underlying the Faret-ta decision is that the defendant has a constitutional right to conduct his own defense without the benefit of counsel. Id. at 814, 95 S.Ct. 2525. This right includes “the calling and interrogation of favorable witnesses, the cross-examination of adverse witnesses, and the orderly introduction of evidence.” Id. at 818, 95 S.Ct. 2525. If a trial court improperly denies a defendant these rights, the only proper remedy is to have a new proceeding at which the defendant is permitted to exercise them. This necessarily requires a proceeding at which the defendant pro se can call and interrogate witnesses, cross-examine unfavorable witnesses, and introduce evidence. See, e.g., Tennis, 997 So.2d at 379-80 (<HOLDING>); Fleck v. State, 956 So.2d 548, 549 (Fla. 2d

A: holding that defendants waived any challenge to the trial courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing
B: holding that constructive amendments which are per se reversible under harmless error analysis are also per se reversible under plain error analysis
C: holding that the failure to hold a faretta hearing is per se reversible error and reversing the defendants conviction vacating his death sentence and remanding for a new trial
D: holding that superior court erred in reversing trial courts order granting new trial and remanding for a new trial limited to apportionment of damages
C.