In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

is knowing and voluntary, when there is a factual foundation to support it, when the state has agreed to it, then the discretion has ended and the plea must be accepted.” Id. at 1041. We noted, however, that this rule applied only to “unconditional and unqualified” guilty pleas, not to negotiated pleas where the State has agreed to a particular sentence or to the disposition of particular charges, or where the State opposes the plea. Id. at 1041-42 (on motion for rehearing). Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i) provides: “A defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere may expressly reserve the right to appeal a prior dispositive order of the lower tribunal, identifying with particularity the point of law being reserved.” See State v. Ashby, 245 So.2d 225 (Fla.1971) (<HOLDING>). A trial judge has wide discretion to refuse 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review (B) holding that a defendant in a criminal case might plead no contest conditioned on the right to preserve for appellate review a question of law (C) holding that the defendant failed properly to preserve assignment of error for appellate review because the trial court had no opportunity to consider the defendants contention as presented on appeal (D) holding that there is no due process right to appellate review (E) holding that under state procedural law a timely objection is necessary to preserve a batson question for appellate review
(B)

the trial court erroneously classified property as marital when in fact it was non-marital, the question becomes what relief, if any, this court ought to grant. “The erroneous characterization of property requires reversal of the order dividing marital property if the error materially impacts the overall distribution of the marital property.” Halupa v. Halupa, 943 S.W.2d 272, 278 (Mo.App. E.D.1997). Here, by our calculation, the difference in the calculation is roughly five thousand dollars. The trial court awarded to each party a percentage of the property based on their respective contributions. The trial court was free to conclude that Wife was entitled to a share of the value of the home due to her significant contributions. Moritz v. Moritz, 844 S.W.2d 109, 112 (Mo.App. W.D.1992)(<HOLDING>). Because the property was not transmuted, it 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a nonowning spouse is entitled to some benefit when marital funds are used to improve nonmarital property (B) holding that a trial court may find that a nonowning spouse is entitled to some benefit by reason of marital funds having been used to pay off debts on the owning spouses nonmarital property (C) holding that home purchased with separate funds and titled in one spouses name was transmuted into marital property because home was used as marital residence and the other spouse contributed to payments and repairs on home (D) holding that clear language in one portion of a later may cause ambiguity in another portion to dissipate (E) holding that one spouse may be entitled to a portion of the equity in home purchased with nonmarital funds
(E)

or beneficiaries." AS 23.30.012(b). 38 . Dameron v. Neumann Bros., 339 N.W.2d 160, 161 (Iowa 1983) (after employee was awarded weekly PTD benefits, he applied to have them commuted to lump-sum award; commutation was permitted as being in employee's best interest); Codling v. Aztec Well Servicing Co., 89 N.M. 213, 549 P.2d 628, 632 (App.1976) (reversing Iump-sum commutation of PPI award where insufficient evidence supported exceptional circumstances to justify commutation); Bailey v. Colonial Freight Sys., Inc., 836 S.W.2d 554, 557 (Tenn.1992) (trial court must consider whether commutation of award is in employee's best interests as well as employee's ability to manage his money). 39 . 8 Arthur Larson & Lex K. Larson, Workers Compensation Law § 132.07[1] ( 8-59 (Alaska 1993) (<HOLDING>). 44 . Witt v. Watkins, 579 P.2d 1065, 1067 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that as 2330012 prohibits setting aside workers compensation c  r based on mistake (B) holding that because maryland law expressly creates right to file workers compensation claim action exists for wrongful discharge for termination based solely on the filing of a workers compensation claim (C) holding that the parties choiceoflaw agreement as relating to workers compensation was appropriately avoided where it offended state public policy as reflected in express provisions of the pennsylvania workers compensation act (D) holding that an agencys determination on a workers compensation claim was entitled to deference (E) recognizing duty to deal in good faith in workers compensation setting

(A)