Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
by Pub.L. No. 76-2004, § 4 (eff. July 1, 2004); Pub.L. No. 82-2004, § 2 (eff. July 1, 2004); and Pub.L. No. 2-2005, § 36 (eff. April 25, 2005)). 2 . Ind.Code § 9-30-5-1 (2004). 3 . Ind.Code § 9-30-5-5. 4 . We note that, had the jury found Radiek guilty of both operating a vehicle while intoxicated causing death as a class C felony and operating a vehicle with a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II causing death as a class C felony, the trial court could not have entered judgment of conviction on both verdicts due to double jeopardy principles. The Indiana Supreme Court has held that "[ejnhancement of one offense for the very same harm as another is not permissible.” Carrico v. State, 775 N.E.2d 312, 314 (Ind. 2002); see also Pierce v. State, 761 N.E.2d 826, 830 (Ind.2002) . SULLIVAN, Judge, dissenting. The jury did not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the claims of the class representative and class members must be based on the same legal or remedial theory
B. holding that defendants auto theft conviction could serve to support his conviction for auto theft as a class c felony and as a prior unrelated felony conviction under the habitual offender statute
C. holding that where a burglary conviction is elevated to a class a felony based on the same bodily injury that forms the basis of a class b robbery conviction the two cannot stand
D. holding in part that robbery as a class b felony is not necessarily a lesserincluded offense of robbery as a class a felony
E. holding that the defendants homeinvasion robbery conviction violated double jeopardy because it arose from the same incident as the defendants burglary with an assault or battery conviction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.