With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Court and the Texas Supreme Court, as well as the opinions of this and other Texas courts of appeals, counsels against adopting their view at this time. Therefore, absent guidance to the contrary from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, binding precedent forecloses this issue against White. Cf. Davis v. State, 119 S.W.3d 359, 365-66 (Tex.App.-Waco 2003, pet. ref'd) (testimony of jury’s consideration of parole application not permitted under Rule 606(b) at motion for new trial hearing; Rule 606(b) constitutional on its face and as applied); Musgrove v. State, 82 S.W.3d 34, 38-39 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002, pet. ref'd) (application of Rule 606(b) did not violate appellant’s due process rights); Hicks v. State, 15 S.W.3d 626, 629-30 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>); Sanders, 1 S.W.3d at 888 (district court

A: recognizing defendants state and federal constitutional rights to testify
B: holding the argument that the state and federal constitutions required appointed counsel in adoption proceeding was not preserved
C: holding that the former alaska civil rule governing prejudgement attachments violated the due process clauses of both the state and the federal constitutions
D: holding rule 606b is constitutional under both state and federal constitutions guaranteeing fair and impartial jury and citing hines v state 3 sw3d 618 texapptexarkana 1999 pet refd for support
D.