Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
We find merit in one of Gary’s claims and reverse as to it. We affirm the trial court’s order in all other respects without comment. Gary asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the jury instruction on attempted burglary, which Gary contends was “ambiguous, vague and unconstitutional.” Specifically, Gary asserts that the instruction combined an attempted burglary instruction with an attempt to commit a crime instruction and produced a hybrid instruction of attempt to commit attempted burglary. He contends that this hybrid instruction confused the jury and shifted the burden of persuasion onto him for some of the elements of the crime. We find this to be a facially sufficient claim for relief. See Yarbrough v. State, 599 So.2d 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) . The trial court denied' relief on the basis
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding where defendant challenged jury instruction and also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel based upon his counsels failure to object to instruction because we find no error in the instructions defendants claim for ineffective assistance of counsel must also be rejected
B. holding appellant made facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel where he asserted counsel failed to object to jury instructions which improperly combined elements of separate offenses
C. holding that failure to object to admissible evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel
D. recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel
E. holding that right to appeal claim of ineffective assistance of counsel alleging that counsel failed to convey plea negotiations timely and adequately inform of consequences of pleading guilty to jury for sentencing waived because plea of guilty to jury was independent of and not supported by alleged ineffective assistance of counsel claims
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.