Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
permitted Williams's convictions despite a lack of sufficient evidence, the result of the trial is fundamentally unfair. Garner v. State, 550 N.E.2d 1309, 1312 (Ind. Ct.App.1990). The crux of Williams's allegation of ineffective assistance is identical to his allegation of fundamental error, that is, his convictions lacked sufficient evidentiary support. Generally, allegations of errors not raised on direct appeal are considered waived for purposes of post-conviction relief. Green v. State, 525 NE.2d 1260, 1261 (Ind.Ct.App.1988). However, conviction without sufficient evidence constitutes fundamental error, and fundamental error may be raised in a post-conviction proceeding, within the rules of post-conviction procedure. Id. See also Smith v. State, 559 N.E.2d 888 (Ind. Ct.App.1990) . We therefore will examine, on the merits, the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that insufficiency of evidence is reviewable even in a postconviction setting
B. holding that postconviction proceeding is a civil suit
C. recognizing that rule 32 is a postconviction remedy
D. holding that claims not raised in a timely postconviction motion are waived
E. holding that insufficiency of evidence not cognizable in postconviction claim
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.