Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to demonstrate incompetency, a defendant could easily avoid prosecution through immature behavior. Id. The State directs this Court to Clark v. State, 47 S.W.3d 211 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2001, no pet.). We find Clark analogous to the instant case. In Clark, the trial court held a competency hearing in July of 1999, but the appellant argued that the court abused its discretion in failing to conduct a second competency hearing in November of 1999. Clark, 47 S.W.3d at 215-16. The court of appeals noted that, while the appellant’s behavior at the November 1999 pretrial hearing was “bizarre,” no new evidence was presented indicating a change in the appellant’s mental condition from the previous finding. Id. at 218, citing Miles v. State, 688 S.W.2d 219, 224 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1985, pet. refd) ; O’Neil v. State, 642 S.W.2d 259, 262
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that to justify a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence 1 the evidence must have been discovered after trial 2 the failure to discover this evidence must not be attributable to a lack of due diligence on the part of the movant 3 the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching 4 the evidence must be material and 5 the evidence must be likely to produce an acquittal if a new trial is granted
B. holding defendant not entitled toa hearing on his motion for a new trial where he failed to prove that his new evidence  was in fact newly discovered and that its recent discovery was in no way attributable to a previous lack of diligence
C. holding that appellant must present some evidence of a subsequent change in competency or some new evidence in a manner analogous to newly discovered evidence in a motion for new trial to complain of a denial of a second competency hearing
D. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence where the evidence would serve only to impeach  testimony
E. holding that the defendants evidence did not qualify as newly discovered evidence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.