Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(citing State v. DeLuna, 110 Ariz. 497, 500, 520 P.2d 1121, 1124 (1974)). Nevertheless, an indigent defendant is not “entitled to counsel of choice, or to a meaningful relationship with his or her attorney.” Moody, 192 Ariz. at 507, ¶ 11, 968 P.2d at 580 (citing State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 591, 858 P.2d 1152, 1194 (1993)). But when there is a complete breakdown in communication or an irreconcilable conflict between a defendant and his appointed counsel, that defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel has been violated. See id. Accordingly, this court has held that if a defendant is forced to go to trial with counsel with whom he has an irreconcilable conflict or a complete breakdown in communication, a resulting conviction must be reversed. See id. at 509, ¶ 23, 968 P.2d at 582 . ¶7 Therefore, as the court of appeals
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a trial courts erroneous denial of the defendants counsels application for admission pro hac vice violated the defendants sixth amendment right to choice of counsel and amounted to a structural error requiring no showing of prejudice
B. holding that a trial courts erroneous denial of a request to change counsel deprives a defendant of his sixth amendment right to counsel which infects the entire trial process requiring automatic reversal quoting bland v cal dept of corr 20 f3d 1469 1478 9th cir1994 overruled on other grounds by schell v witek 218 f3d 1017 102425 9th cir 2000
C. recognizing that the sixth amendment guarantees a defendant the right to counsel and the right to waive counsel
D. holding that a criminal defendant has a sixth amendment right to counsel at trial
E. holding that the sixth amendment right to counsel embodies the right to effective assistance of counsel
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.