Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
judicata because a court of competent jurisdiction previously signed an order denying expunction. The Department has assigned error only in these two respects. Notably, on appeal, the Department has not challenged any of the following: (1) the sufficiency of the notice the Department received of the hearing on Pinnock’s expunction petition, (2) the trial court’s action in granting the expunction petition without receiving any evidence at the expunction hearing, (3) any alleged failure by Pinnock to prove his entitlement to the expunction relief the trial court granted, or (4) the trial court’s signing of an “Agreed Order of Expunction,” despite the lack of any apparent indication that the Department had agreed to the order. See Texas Nat’l Bank v. Karnes, 717 S.W.2d 901, 903 (Tex.1986) ; Wilson v. Patterson, No. 14-10-00943-CV, 2011
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a ruling of the trial court to which no error has been assigned becomes the law of the case and is not subject to review by the court of appeals
B. holding that it is error for court of appeals to reverse trial courts ruling that had not been objected to at the trial court level
C. holding an appellate court cannot reverse a trial courts judgment absent properly assigned error
D. holding that the court of appeals may not reverse a trial courts judgment in the absence of properly assigned error
E. holding it is axiomatic that an appellate court cannot reverse a trial courts judgment absent properly assigned error
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.