With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the order for postconviction relief. The admissibility in evidence of that order is unchallenged. Different considerations apply to the admissibility of the order placing Mr. Cira on probation because it was based on the nolo contendere pleas. However, the admissibility of judgments of conviction or orders placing a defendant on probation based on a nolo contendere plea is a separate issue from the issue of the admissibility in evidence of the plea itself. Section 90.410 addresses the latter but not the former. We hold that the order placing Mr. Cira on probation was admissible in evidence for the limited purpose of showing the final disposition of the charges against him after the entry of the order for postconviction relief. Cf. Olsen v. Correiro, 189 F.3d 52, 58-62 (1st Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Thus the order for postconvietion relief and

A: holding that conviction based on plea of nolo contendere bars subsequent  1983 claim because even though such a plea does not involve admission of guilt it does communicate acceptance of conviction and sentence
B: holding that evidence of conviction and sentence for manslaughter based on plea of nolo contendere following order for new trial on firstdegree murder charge was admissible to counter claim for incarcerationbased damages by showing that plaintiff was incarcerated for something other than the murder conviction
C: holding that it was not error to allow the penalty phase jury to hear evidence that the defendants previous conviction of seconddegree murder was obtained pursuant to an indictment for firstdegree murder
D: holding that conviction for seconddegree murder operates as implied acquittal on firstdegree murder count
B.