With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 241 Conn. 439, 696 A.2d 1235, 1244 (1997) (citing Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-121(b)); State v. Barthell, 554 So.2d 17, 18 (Fla.3d DCA 1989) (citing Fla. Stat. § 812.012(9)(c)); State v. Amsden, 300 N.W.2d 882, 886 (Iowa 1981) (citing Iowa Code § 714.3); State v. Sampson, 120 N.H. 251, 413 A.2d 590, 592 (1980) (citing N.H.Rev.Stat. § 637:2V(@)); State v. Damiano, 322 N.J.Super. 22, 730 A.2d 376, 392-93 (1999) (citing N.J. Stat. 2C:20-2b(4)); State v. Baca, 123 N.M. 124, 934 P.2d 1053, 1056 (1997) (citing MPC § 223.1(2)(c)); State v. Johnston, 478 N.W.2d 281, 283 (S.D.1991); Turner, 636 S.W.2d at 196 (citing Tex. Penal Code § 31.09); State v. Garman, 984 P.2d at 457 (citing former Wash. Rev.Code 9A.56.010(17)(c) (1998)). But see State v. Heslop, 842 S.W.2d 72, 75 (Mo.1992) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). 14 . See, e.g., State v. Childs, 242

A: holding that the defendant who was charged with felony murder was not entitled to a lesser included instruction on manslaughter because manslaughter is neither a lesser included offense nor an inferior degree crime with respect to felony murder
B: holding that reviewing court in a proper case may modify a judgment of conviction below and affirm it as a conviction of a lesser degree of the offense charged or of a lesser crime included therein where the errors do not affect the conviction of the lesser offense 
C: holding that aggregation statute serves the limited purpose of permitting the state to combine the value of property stolen during a single course of conduct to determine if the defendant should be charged with a class c felony or a lesser offense
D: holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense
C.