With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to privately retained counsel is overwhelmingly supported by virtually all who addressed the issue in comments and at oral argument, including the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (FACDL), which represents private lawyers throughout Florida. The sole opponent to this extension is the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee (Rules Committee), which is concerned that requiring private attorneys to comply with rule 3.112 before they can represent a capital defendant could limit the constitutional right of an accused, facing the death penalty, to retain counsel of his or her choice. Those who favor extending the standards to privately retained counsel counter this concern by citing such cases as Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692, 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988) (<HOLDING>); and Vagner v. Wainwright, 398 So.2d 448, 452

A: holding that a criminal defendant has a sixth amendment right to counsel at trial
B: holding that a defendant has right to be represented by counsel in all criminal trials for serious offenses
C: holding that there is an inference from the existence of a blank for the name of defendants lawyer and from the absence of any evidence to the contrary that defendant was not represented by counsel
D: recognizing that while the right to select and be represented by ones preferred attorney is comprehended by the sixth amendment the essential aim of the amendment is to guarantee an effective advocate for each criminal defendant rather than to ensure that a defendant will inexorably be represented by the lawyer whom he prefers
D.