Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
merit-less.” See Rabideau v. City of Racine, 243 Wis.2d 486, 627 N.W.2d 795, 805 (2001) (noting that an action is frivolous when it cannot “be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law”); of. Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.1 (describing a claim as not frivolous if it is based on “a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law”). Similarly, a claim is “indisputably meritless” when it clearly is procedurally barred, it asserts the infringement of a legal interest that plainly does not exist, or the record completely contradicts it. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827; Hodges, 332 Ill.Dec. 318, 912 N.E.2d at 1212; see also People v. Alcozer, 241 Ill.2d 248, 350 Ill. Dec. 1, 948 N.E.2d 70, 77 (2011) . A claim lacks an objective, good-faith basis
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that claims raised in a postconviction motion cannot be relitigated in a habeas petition
B. holding that untimely petition for postconviction petition divests trial court of jurisdiction
C. holding that procedural defects can result in a conclusion that a postconviction petition is frivolous
D. holding that a second or subsequent state petition for postconviction relief filed according to the procedural rules of the state constitutes a properly filed application  without regard to the merits of the petition
E. holding that second state petition for postconviction relief that was dismissed as frivolous and patently without merit was properly filed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.