With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". counsel are precluded from doing so. Although the lower court in the present case did not address this point in detail, the court did explain that the claim was denied because we have repeatedly rejected constitutional challenges to rule 4 — 3.5(d)(4). The lower court provided its rationale for denying relief on the constitutional challenge and, in doing so, sufficiently complied with rule 3.851. Accordingly, Troy is not entitled to relief as to this subclaim. 8. Caldwell Claim Troy contends that the trial court’s instruction to the jury that its role is advisory diminished its responsibility, contrary 5 (Fla.2006)). Second, Troy’s claim that the trial court’s instruction diminished the jury’s sense of responsibility is meritless. See Card v. State, 803 So.2d 613, 628 (Fla.2001) (<HOLDING>). Although the instructions provided during the

A: recognizing that references to and descriptions of the jurys verdict as advisory as a recommendation and of the judge as the final sentencing authority are permissible under romano v oklahoma 512 us 1 114 sct 2004 129 led2d 1 1994
B: holding that if jury instructions viewed as a whole fairly state the applicable law to the jury the failure to give particular instructions will not be error
C: holding as meritless a claim that the standard jury instructions which refer to the jury as advisory and refer to jurys verdict as a recommendation violate caldwell
D: holding that district court could not decide after jury returned verdict to treat jury verdict as advisory on issue not triable of right by jury but which was tried by consent of parties to nonadvisory jury
C.