Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
CWOF entered for that first offense was vacated and replaced with a conviction as of the date that the admission to sufficient facts and CWOF was entered (May 1, 2000). A CWOF is the functional equivalent of a guilty plea. “Failure to comply with the conditions does not require the matter to be relitigated, because the defendant has already admitted to facts sufficient to prove guilt. A guilty verdict enters upon proof of failing to comply with the conditions, and the defendant is sentenced as if a guilty verdict had originally entered.” Commonwealth v. Berrios, 84 Mass.App.Ct. 521, 526 (2013). See also, Paquette v. Board of Appeals on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds, Hampden Superior Court (Moriarty, J.), CA No. 10-909 (2011) (found at p. 127 of the Administrative Record) (c)(4)). Finally, Burke’s argument flies in the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that for sentencing purposes the government does not need to allege a defendants prior conviction or prove the fact of a prior conviction where that fact is not an element of the present crime
B. holding that a juvenile adjudication may be used as a prior conviction for apprendi purposes
C. holding that a prior conviction obtained in violation of a defendants constitutional rights cannot be used as the underlying conviction in a prosecution under colorados felon with a gun statute
D. holding that  once the sentence imposed for a conviction has completely expired the collateral consequences of that conviction are not themselves sufficient to render an individual in custody for the purposes of a habeas attack upon it
E. holding that violation of probation imposed on a cwof caused a replacement of the cwof with a conviction that qualified as a prior conviction for purposes of glc 90 24l
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.