With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In June 2007, the petitioner entered guilty pleas on the charges of breaking and entering and rape. On August 18, 2009, a consortium of attorneys filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the petitioner’s behalf alleging that his guilty pleas were neither knowing nor voluntary and were constitutionally invalid for several reasons. Id. at 526, 722 S.E.2d at 829. Despite a request from the petitioner’s attorneys that his release from parole supervision be delayed, the petitioner was released from supervision on August 24, 2009, six days after his habeas petition was filed. The Supreme Court rejected an interpretation of Code § 8.01-662 requiring that the petitioner still be under detention in order to seek relief from an allegedly unlawful conviction. Id. at 529, 722 S.E.2d at 830 (<HOLDING>). Further, the Court held that the controversy

A: holding that a petition for review is an adequate substitute for habeas corpus
B: recognizing that federal habeas statutes require petitioner to be in custody when petition filed
C: holding that the rule applies for purposes of habeas corpus under section 2254
D: holding that active jurisdiction arose when the petitioner was detained for purposes of habeas corpus when the petition was filed
D.