Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
The defendant argues that the trial court committed reversible error by not appointing him counsel for his sentencing hearing, citing to case law holding that where the sentencing error is due to judicial error the defendant is entitled to representation. See Nickerson v, State, 927 So.2d 114, 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). The State concedes that a defendant is generally entitled to counsel at sentencing or re-sentencing. See Cross v. State, 18 So.3d 1235, 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (stating that a defendant has the right to be represented by an attorney at resentencing). However, the State argues that the defendant was not entitled to the appointment of counsel because the trial court’s actions were ministerial. See generally Frost v. State, 769 So.2d 443, 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) ; Navarrete v. State, 707 So.2d 803, 804 (Fla.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a trial courts changing of the written sentence to conform with the oral pronouncement of sentence is ministerial
B. holding that the failure of a written sentence to conform to the courts oral pronouncement cannot be raised in a rule 3800a motion
C. holding that the trial courts oral pronouncement must conform to the written judgment
D. holding written judgment must conform to oral pronouncement
E. holding that in cases of direct conflict between a courts oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment the oral pronouncement controls
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.