With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to hear this application would be confronted with the 1995 panel’s determinations of precisely the same issues. There are no new issues raised by the application, which appears to have been undertaken as a substitute for an appeal that was never pursued following the 1995 decision. A new panel would have no basis for setting aside the 1995 panel’s findings and would, therefore, be compelled to enter judgment dismissing the application. The situation is such that there are no factual issues in dispute, and the standing committee is entitled, therefore, as a matter of law, to a judgment dismissing the application. See also In re Application of Kliger, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven (September 26, 1997) (Licari, Fracasse, and Pittman, Js.) (20 Conn. L. Rptr. 435, 437) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, Eberhart is

A: recognizing that the burden to establish a valid waiver of a constitutional right is upon the prosecution
B: holding jury waiver valid where contract negotiations took place over a period of years waiver was not inconspicuous and it was not a contract of adhesion
C: holding that the prior conviction was valid for calculation of the defendants criminal history because his waiver of the right to counsel was valid
D: holding that waiver of right to reapply was valid and that applicant was therefore estopped to apply for readmission
D.