Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
pre-trial motion to suppress. We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the cause for a new trial without addressing the merits of Robuck’s complaints. In its brief, the State notes that a division in authority exists among the courts of appeal regarding whether nonjurisdictional defects, such as the denial of a motion to suppress, are waived by application of the Helms rule in misdemeanor cases where the defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere without a plea bargain. Compare Lynch v. State, 903 S.W.2d 115 (Tex.App.— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.)(applying Helms rule), and Studer v. State, 757 S.W.2d 107, 109 n. 1 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1988)(same), aff'd, 799 S.W.2d 263 (Tex.Crim.App.1990), ivith Salazar v. State, 773 S.W.2d 34, 35 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no pet.), and Yates v. State, 759 S.W.2d 949, 949-50
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that similar agreement allowed the defendant to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress
B. holding that a legal conclusion on a motion to suppress is reviewed de novo
C. holding that when a court has given a party a full and fair opportunity to litigate a motion to suppress and then  has decided the motion on the merits the party may be estopped from bringing the same motion in subsequent litigation
D. holding that it is clear that hearsay evidence is admissible in a hearing on a motion to suppress
E. holding merits of complaint regarding motion to suppress addressable based on inapplicability of rule 40b1
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.