Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Appellant provides no evidence — and indeed does not even assert — that the court’s order was ever given effect. Appellant is not entitled to relief merely on the basis of a trial court order that, although inconsistent with a current rule, led to no improper action or omission. Consistent with Rule 576, decisional law from this Court has clarified Commonwealth policy regarding hybrid representation. No defendant has a right to hybrid representation, either at trial or on appeal. Commonwealth v. Ellis, 534 Pa. 176, 626 A.2d 1137, 1139 (1993); Commonwealth v. Ali, 608 Pa. 71, 10 A.3d 282, 293 (2010) (characterizing as a “legal nullity” a pro se Pa.R.A.P.1925(b) statement filed by an appellant who was represented by counsel); Commonwealth v. Colson, 507 Pa. 440, 490 A.2d 811, 822 (1985) . Here, Appellant was represented by
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that there is no federal or colorado constitutional right to postconviction counsel but there is a limited statutory right
B. holding that it is well settled that there is no constitutional right to an appeal
C. holding that there is no constitutional right for a represented defendant to act as cocounsel
D. holding that there is no constitutional right to appeal a criminal conviction
E. recognizing a defendants constitutional right to be represented by counsel of his own choice
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.