that violated double jeopardy. Following resentencing and a subsequent appeal, Clark has now filed a petition alleging that his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to argue in the direct appeal that fundamental error occurred when the jury was instructed regarding the forcible-felony-exception to a claim of self defense. See § 776.041(1), Fla. Stat. (1999) (prohibiting the use of force by one who is “attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony”). We deny the petition. The forcible-felony-exception instruction is given only where a defendant is charged with a separate, independent forcible felony, i.e., a forcible felony other than the one for which the defendant claims self defense. Giles v. State, 831 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (<HOLDING>); see In re Std. Jury Instr. in Crim. Cases,
holding that insanity is a complete defense to the criminal charge holding that the giving of a felony murder instruction is not a relevant mitigating circumstance when the defendant acted alone to kill the victim recognizing that giving this instruction where no independent forcible felony is alleged is misleading and circular and effectively negated the only defense to the charge recognizing district court does not err by giving instruction that tracks pattern instruction and correctly states the law holding that the trial court erred by giving a misleading instruction