With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". face. We therefore hold that relator’s attempted collateral attack on the Agreed Order fails. Even addressing relator’s specific complaints regarding the grandparents’ standing, we further conclude his challenges fail for several reasons. First, he states that upon the death of the managing conservator (M.W.L.’s mother), the managing conservatorship ended immediately and, therefore, under Greene v. Schuble, 654 S.W.2d 436, 437-38 (Tex.1983), there was no longer a valid, subsisting court order. He contends that the grandparents failed to show they had sufficient standing under the family code to pursue their suit to modify the parent-child relationship because, under Greene, the conservatorship orders between the mother and father ended immediately upon the mother’s death. Id. at 437-38 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, he contends the grandparents’ suit

A: recognizing possession of cocaine as a lesserincluded offense of possession of cocaine with intent to sell
B: holding that possession of a pistol in public requires knowing possession
C: holding portion of decree dealing with conservatorship no longer valid court order governing possession upon death of conservator for purposes of then section 1410e habeas proceeding for possession of child
D: holding that trial court may arrest judgment on conviction for possession with intent to deliver and enter judgment of guilt on simple possession
C.