With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Again, Metellus answered affirmatively. The prosecutor inquired whether Elozar and Ocer participated in the home invasion and burglary that occurred January 10, and Metellus agreed. As to the home invasion of January 13, Metellus agreed that Ocer and Elozar participated in that offense. The prosecutor showed Metellus a picture of Elozar, and Metellus identified Elozar as the same man who had participated in the robberies with him. 2 . Metellus, through counsel, advised the court that he was not seeking to vacate the plea agreement and did not object to the sentence that was imposed. 3 . The constitutional protection against double jeopardy may be waived pursuant to a bargained-for plea agreement. Melvin v. State, 645 So.2d 448 (Fla.1994); Novaton v. State, 634 So.2d 607 (Fla.1994) (<HOLDING>); Blair v. State, 805 So.2d 873, 878 (Fla. 2d

A: holding that the constitutional protection against double jeopardy may be waived pursuant to a bargainedfor plea
B: holding that a defendants acceptance of sentencing pursuant to a bargained for plea agreement waives any double jeopardy violations
C: holding that defendant did not have standing to raise facial challenge to validity of aggravated assault statutes for their risk of creating double jeopardy grounds because he himself was not charged in way that created double jeopardy
D: holding that a bargainedfor plea waives the right to attack multiple convictions on double jeopardy grounds
D.