Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
record, we conclude that the defendant was not aware of the consequences of his plea and that he was misled or harmed by the lack of admonishment. Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). In this context, “harm” means that “appellant probably would not have pleaded guilty but for the failure to admonish.” Id. at 638 n. 14. Reversal is only warranted if “the error may have had a ‘substantial influence’ on the outcome of the proceeding.” Webb v. State, 156 S.W.3d 653, 655 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, pet. ref'd). We may assume from the trial court’s statements on the record that, had it been aware that the sentence imposed exceeded the plea agreement, it would have modified the sentence to reflect a $2,000 fine. See State v. Aguilera, 165 S.W.3d 695, 698 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) . Such a modification would have rendered any
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that offenses sentenced on the same day by the same judge are not related under the guidelines
B. holding that there was no coercion by the trial court where the jury deliberated all day friday and all day saturday
C. holding that a telephone request to the court for a continuance the day before the trial was to start was a nullity
D. holding that trial court may modify sentence on the same day as the assessment of the initial sentence and before the court adjourns for the day
E. holding notice unreasonable where it was served the afternoon of the day before the presentation of the petition to the court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.