With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". but this time requested only that appellant be examined by “one or more” court-appointed experts. The trial court held a third hearing and again found appellant mentally competent to proceed. At trial, appellant moved unsuccessfully for judgment of acquittal, arguing the State failed to prove premeditation. In closing argument, defense counsel conceded that appellant had committed the lesser offense of manslaughter. In rely on the first two suggestions of mental incompetence to preserve this issue for appellate review. Not only did Clow-ers fail to object at any of the three competency hearings, he ultimately invited the trial court’s error, requesting appointment of just one mental health expert before the final proceeding. See Mairena v. State, 6 So.3d 80, 86 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (<HOLDING>); Green v. State, 598 So.2d 313, 313-14 (Fla.

A: holding that the admission of out of court statements by a government witness when responding to an inquiry by defense counsel creates invited error 
B: holding failure to appoint two experts not preserved for review where defense counsel invited error by requesting only one
C: holding that defense counsel had invited prosecutors comments on parole law
D: holding that because defense counsel failed to alert the trial court that he was requesting relief based on a violation of defendants constitutional rights due process argument was not preserved for appellate review
B.