With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Hazzard for $5671,47 and his handgun on March 4, 1993. On August 3, 1993, a jury convicted Hazzard on all charges. This Court affirmed Hazzard’s convictions on direct appeal. Hazzard v. State, 642 N.E.2d 1368 (Ind.1994). Hazzard did not petition the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari. On July 22, 1996, Hazzard filed a petition for post-conviction relief claiming that his conviction for possession, assessment of the CSET, and civil forfeiture of his handgun violated double jeopardy protections. The post-conviction court denied Hazzard’s petition. Hazzard appealed. In a memorandum decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the post-conviction court’s denial of relief, holding that the post-conviction court erred in not applying retroactively the rule announced in Bryant, 660 N.E.2d 290 (<HOLDING>). Hazzard v. State, 691 N.E.2d 510

A: holding that conviction of and punishment for both the underlying predicate offense and continuing criminal enterprise does not violate double jeopardy
B: holding that unlike under the federal constitution a civil forfeiture is punishment under the new mexico double jeopardy clause
C: holding that if double jeopardy clause is not violated because legislature intended double punishment section 7019 is not applicable and merger is not required
D: holding that because cset is punishment the double jeopardy clause bars criminal prosecution for the underlying drug offense after cset has been assessed
D.