With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that are intended to negate or nullify the outcome of prior state proceedings. The circumstances presented by this case highlight those same concerns. To begin, plaintiff entered into a bargain with the Commonwealth. He essentially consented to a term of probation in exchange for the dismissal of his criminal charges. In doing so, he “avoid[ed] the possibility of a formal guilty finding but ... he also fore[went] a formal finding that his arrest lacked probable cause.” Kennedy, 2014 WL 4926348 at *2. He now seeks to use a federal civil rights action to obtain the formal finding that he avoided in state court. Furthermore, while plaintiff did not plead guilty or admit to sufficient facts, he did accept the state’s authority to impose a term of probation. Cf. Olsen, 189 F.3d at 69 (<HOLDING>). A subsequent finding, through a federal

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 the trial court had inherent power to grant or deny acceptance of a deferred acceptance of nolo contendere plea
C: holding that rule 11 does not require court to ensure that defendant understands consequences of nolo contendere plea on parole eligibility in sexual assault case
D: holding that plea of guilty or nolo contendere is not rendered involuntary because it is a product of plea bargaining an accepted plea bargain must be recorded and court may accept a bargained plea to a lesser offense reasonably related to a charged offense
A.