With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The State filed a motion to amend the indictment, which in paragraph 2 quoted the charging language from the indictment with the addition of “by leaving [them] in a room without adult supervision with a candle burning” to the reckless injury to a child count. The trial court’s order granting the motion did not set forth the amended language in full but stated that the indictment was amended “as requested by the State in paragraph number two (2) of its Original Motion to Amend the Indictment.” Cf. Aguilera v. State, 75 S.W.3d 60, 64 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002, pet. ref d) (concluding that trial court order, which reproduced language of indictment with amending language included, effectively amended indictment); Valenti v. State, 49 S.W.3d 594, 598 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). The indictment was never physically

A: holding that a trial court may rescind an order granting defendants motion for new trial within 75dayperiod allowed for ruling on the defendants motion
B: holding that a trial court erred in granting a defendants motion to mitigate where the defendants original sentence was imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement
C: holding that physical interlineation on trial court order granting states motion to amend that reproduced original language of indictment was effective as amendment
D: holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment
C.