Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to raise it in a subsequent application. See Silvesan v. State, 1999 ND 62, ¶ 12, 591 N.W.2d 131. He may not raise this issue now. See id. C [¶ 14] Finally, Murchison contends he was denied a fast .and speedy trial. [¶ 15] Section 29-32.1-12(1), N.D.C.C., allows a court to deny a post-conviction application on the grounds of res judicata if the same claims have been fully and finally determined in a previous proceeding. See Hughes, 2002 ND 28, ¶ 8, 639 N.W.2d 696. [¶ 16] Murchison raised the speedy trial argument in his first Application for Post-Conviction Hearing. When that application was denied by the trial court, Murchison did not appeal. Murchison has had this issue fully and finally determined in a previous proceeding. See Murchison, 1998 ND 96, ¶ 11, 578 N.W.2d 514 . The doctrine of res judicata cannot be
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a ground for relief not pled in a motion for postconviction relief is waived and cannot be raised on appeal
B. holding that when no appeal was taken from an initial application for postconviction relief the claims were fully and finally determined in that previous proceeding
C. holding that issues were not waived on subsequent appeal when initial appeal was dismissed
D. holding that postconviction relief claims which either were raised or could have been raised on direct appeal were properly denied without an evidentiary hearing
E. holding that postconviction proceeding is a civil suit
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.