system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing to make a factual determination as to whether Richardson’s failure to appear at his sentencing was willful. At this hearing, the State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Richardson willfully failed to appear. See Peacock v. State, 77 So.3d 1285, 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citing Ingmire, 9 So.3d at 1281). If the State fails to establish willfulness, then Richardson should be sentenced in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement previously accepted by the trial court. See Lowery v. State, 22 So.3d 745, 749 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). REVERSED and REMANDED. TORPY, PALMER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur. 1 . Richardson’s plea agreement is known as a "Quarterman” agreement. See Quarterman v. State, 527 So.2d 1380 (Fla.1988) Options: A. holding defendant cannot waive claims of an illegal sentence a sentence violating terms of plea agreement an unknowing and involuntary plea and ineffective assistance of counsel B. holding that as a matter of common sense a defendant is already under a legal duty not to go out and commit more crimes in the future regardless of whether the penalty is ordinary or enhanced neither the court nor counsel is required to advise a defendant what penalty he can expect to receive for crimes not yet committed the defendant can avoid further sentencing consequences enhanced or otherwise by refraining from committing new crimes future sentence enhancement for a later crime is not a direct consequence of a plea at all but is instead contingent first on the defendants voluntary decision to commit another crime second on whether the new crime is one capable of having enhanced sentencing and third on the prosecutors discretionary decision whether to seek enhancement future sentence enhancement is plainly a collateral consequence not a direct consequence of the defendants plea in the earlier case C. holding specific performance of plea agreement proper remedy where defendant testified against all of his coconspirators and where court later unilaterally breached original plea agreement by imposing a ninety day term of incarceration in addition to sentence of probation that had been earlier agreed to without first providing1 defendant with opportunity to withdraw plea on the record D. holding that the district court erred when it used rule 36 to amend the defendants sentence to include an order of forfeiture that had been agreed to in the plea agreement but which the court failed to make a part of its judgment at sentencing E. holding that where a furlough and an enhanced sentence for failure to appear in court at a later time are part of the plea agreement a court is justified in imposing the enhanced sentence after the defendant fails to appear in court without giving him an opportunity to withdrawhis plea

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that where a furlough and an enhanced sentence for failure to appear in court at a later time are part of the plea agreement a court is justified in imposing the enhanced sentence after the defendant fails to appear in court without giving him an opportunity to withdrawhis plea