Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
who has pled guilty in an open plea to challenge the sentence imposed is to file a direct appeal or, if the time for filing a direct appeal has run, to file an appeal under [Indiana Post-Convietion Rule] 2," rather than filing a post-conviction relief petition. The trial court subsequently granted Sullivan permission to pursue this belated appeal challenging his sentence. The State does not argue that Sullivan cannot invoke Blakely with respect to a sentencing hearing that was conducted in 1999. It was correct not to make such an argument. The Indiana Supreme Court's rule that precludes retroactive application of new criminal rules to collateral proceedings does not apply to direct appeals brought pursuant to Post-Conviction Rule 2. Fosha v. State, 747 N.E.2d 549, 552 (Ind.2001) . "New rules for the conduct of criminal
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the granting of an application to file an appeal out of time is considered part of the direct appeal process under oklahoma law
B. holding on appeal from a habeas corpus denial that counsel was not ineffective for failure to file a notice of appeal because of defendants escape
C. holding that defendants claim based on richardson v state 717 ne2d 32 ind1999 would be considered on the merits where defendant was convicted in 1993 and did not originally timely file a direct appeal but in 1999 was granted permission to file a belated appeal
D. holding that counsels failure to file appeal was not deficient performance under strickland where the petitioner in  2255 action did not direct counsel to file an appeal and acquiesced in counsels decision to pursue as an alternative a reduction in sentence
E. holding that where the fourth amendment question was raised at trial but not preserved on direct appeal in the state court the defendants failure to raise the issue on appeal in the state courts did not suffice to avoid stone
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.