Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
County Mun. Util. Dist. No. 9, 866 S.W.2d 791, 793 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ) (citing McConnell v. Southside Indep. Sch. Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337, 341 (Tex.1993)). An appel late court cannot consider as grounds for reversal, issues the non-movant did not expressly present to the trial court by written response to the summary judgment motion. See City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Autk, 589 S.W.2d 671, 676 (Tex.1979). If the non-movant does not expressly present grounds that would defeat the movant’s right to a summary judgment by filing a written answer or response, he is limited to arguing on appeal that the movant’s motion was legally insufficient. Id. These requirements apply equally to constitutional claims. See Dreyer v. Greene, 871 S.W.2d 697, 698 (Tex. 1993) . We have reviewed Fry’s responses to the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that claims including constitutional claims must be asserted in trial court to be raised on appeal
B. holding that nonconstitutional claims that could have been raised on direct appeal may not be asserted in a collateral proceeding
C. holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal
D. holding claims must be raised on direct appeal or waived
E. holding that a claim including a constitutional claim must have been asserted to the trial court to be raised on appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.