Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the Commonwealth’s efforts to equate the present circumstances with situations in which a Rule 1925(b) statement is filed, but the statement is later alleged to have omitted meritorious issues. In this regard, it is well established that the decision whether to presume prejudice or to require an appellant to demonstrate actual prejudice “turns on the magnitude of the deprivation of the right to effective assistance of counsel.” Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. at 482, 120 S.Ct. at 1037. As we observed in Lantzy, the failure to perfect a requested direct appeal is the functional equivalent of having no repre sentation at all. Id. at 225, 736 A.2d at 571 (citing Evitts, 469 U.S. at 394 n. 6, 105 S.Ct. at 835 n. 6 (1985)); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988) . The difference in degree between failures
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that prejudice should be presumed where counsel filed notice of appeal but failed to perfect the direct appeal
B. holding that a defendant has a constitutional right to counsel as a matter of right on direct appeal
C. recognizing the right to counsel on appeal
D. holding that the complete denial of counsel on direct appeal requires a finding of prejudice
E. holding that the presumption of prejudice must extend as well to the denial of counsel on appeal when the granting of an attorneys motion to withdraw had left the petitioner entirely without the assistance of counsel on appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.